Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Permalink for comment 545609
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-06-18
If you equate "public" with "open", then you may be correct.
I however like to think that "open" means that anybody can participate in the process of developing the protocol. This is not the case here, the protocol is decreed by Google.
Secrecy, fees (e.g. due to patent encumbrance) and such are sufficient conditions for being proprietary, but not necessary.