Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You define "open" as selling a service?


As in The Open Group: discrimination-free, as long as you're able to pay.


You can outright buy OpenAI; as long as you're able to pay. By that definition everything is open/accessible/available.


Right. I'm not defending their naming choice, just pointing out that "open = you need to be rich" is an ancient trope in computing:

Open Group was formed through the merger of Open Software Foundation (est. 1988) and X/Open (est. 1984), and they were all pay-to-play.


I mean, we do use that word to describe physical retail shops as being available to sell vs being closed to sell, so it's not an insane use... though I do think that in a tech context it's more misleading than not.


It is like calling Google "Open Search" or Youtube "Open Video".


> or Youtube "Open Video".

Compared to a curated video service like HBO Max, Hulu, or Netflix, that's an accurate way to describe the relative differences. We aren't used to using that terminology through, so yes, it comes across as weird (and if the point is to communicate features, is not particularly useful compared to other terminology that could be used).

It makes a bit less sense for search IMO, since that's the prevalent model as far as I'm aware, so there's not an easy and obvious comparison that is "closed" which allows us to view Google search as "open".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: