How is Open Source not open? You have the source, and it is open (you can modify, hack, and distribute it). Hence, “Open Source”. What’s wrong with it?
> but open standards used to be the meaning. "ethernet is this, here's how you talk to it, but we're not going to write the code for you" (i'm not claiming that ethernet was originally an open standard, just using that as an example of what an open standard means)
Open standards are not better than Open Source, if you go that way. Most of them are not free, for a start.
> and hardware manufacturers used to include blueprints/schematics (for repair, or for interconnection, for example) and commercial software vendors would show you the source code, snip
That is a fantasised past. Some companies did; most companies did not. Just as nowadays.
I didn't say open standards are better than open source, I said open standards are also open.
don't have time to read the rest of your comment, chatgpt's waiting for me on hold and getting impatient.
open has a number of meanings that are useful, but have been overwhelmed by the concept of open source.
but open standards used to be the meaning. "ethernet is this, here's how you talk to it, but we're not going to write the code for you" (i'm not claiming that ethernet was originally an open standard, just using that as an example of what an open standard means)
and hardware manufacturers used to include blueprints/schematics (for repair, or for interconnection, for example) and commercial software vendors would show you the source code, but at the same time, you weren't being given intellectual property rights or licenses to anything, it was just part of what was required to encourage customers to stick with the product by making it easier to fit in where it was going.
And all of this was a really useful kind of openness. Just mentioning it because when people talk about how open OpenAI is, I'm never quite sure what they're expecting (I don't mind any expectation, not judging, I just don't know)