Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 545609
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
No it isn't. It's IMAP. Google's extensions are defined by Google, but you're welcome to implement your own version of those extensions, or totally different extensions. You're also welcome to write an RFC based on those extension and submit it to the IETF, at which point they'd become "standard".
No it isn't. It's IMAP. Google's extensions are defined by Google, but you're welcome to implement your own version of those extensions, or totally different extensions. You're also welcome to write an RFC based on those extension and submit it to the IETF, at which point they'd become "standard".
I understand and don't dispute that. But in contrast to IMAP which is standardized by the IETF, nobody prevents Google to change their non-standard extensions in an incompatible way tomorrow, rendering your implementation useless. No process is in place that enables participation.




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.