[Foundation-l] Software Policy Draft

[Florence Devouard]

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Being open and kind is one of our values just as freedom is one of our
>> values.
>> It does not mean we should always be 100% open and kind
> 
> Can you give an example where we wouldn't be "100% open"? I'm not
> talking about situations where we would be open _and_ doing something
> equivalent which is proprietary, but those where we would truly only
> offer a proprietary solution.
> 
> It seems to me that such scenarios will always and very deeply,
> fundamentally contradict our mission to provide unrestricted access to
> education.
> 

I am not sure you understand my "open" here in the way I meant it.
Did you read the discussion over "values" in the past few days ?
Whilst it was in the list of shared values, several people objected that 
we were not really open, since some types of people are excluded from 
editing (essentially for not respecting the rules). It may also be 
argued that restricting page creation to anonymous editors is a 
"decrease" in openness.

My use of the term open here is related to the freedom of participation. 
Not the freedom of software.

ant