{"title":"构想开放系统","authors":"C. Kelty","doi":"10.1215/9780822389002-008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Openness is an unruly concept. While free tends toward ambiguity (free as in speech, or free as in beer?), open tends toward obfuscation. Everyone claims to be open, everyone has something to share, everyone agrees that being open is the obvious thing to do-after all, but for all its nt of Free Software. It is never quite clear whether being open is a means or an end. Worse, the opposite of open in this case","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conceiving Open Systems\",\"authors\":\"C. Kelty\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/9780822389002-008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Openness is an unruly concept. While free tends toward ambiguity (free as in speech, or free as in beer?), open tends toward obfuscation. Everyone claims to be open, everyone has something to share, everyone agrees that being open is the obvious thing to do-after all, but for all its nt of Free Software. It is never quite clear whether being open is a means or an end. Worse, the opposite of open in this case\",\"PeriodicalId\":438020,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389002-008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389002-008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Openness is an unruly concept. While free tends toward ambiguity (free as in speech, or free as in beer?), open tends toward obfuscation. Everyone claims to be open, everyone has something to share, everyone agrees that being open is the obvious thing to do-after all, but for all its nt of Free Software. It is never quite clear whether being open is a means or an end. Worse, the opposite of open in this case
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
