Define Open App Ecosystem

I'll adapt some of the comment I made in another thread yesterday:

the following detailed and demanding description of "open source" seemed rather popular in Collaborative Technology Alliance in 2016. Perhaps it seems relevant:

6 freedoms (1) to run the program, (2) to study and change the program in source code form, (3) to redistribute exact copies, (4) to distribute modified versions, (5) to have access to their account data, (6) to use without charge for non-commercial purposes.

Additionally, I'd personally suggest that any development teams which officially release a "finished" (i.e. not alpha or beta) open app should use some specific open organizational principles, including clear standards for processing potential contributions to the code base.

@gregorycassel - that defines open app pretty well. There's a lot of open apps out there. What could make them into an ecosystem?

And for what purpose? For example, https://www.npmjs.com/ is arguably an ecosystem of open apps for constructing node.js systems.

I want to generate a cooperative economic system. Npm will not necessarily help me do that. What do other people want an open app ecosystem to accomplish besides be open and apps that work together in some undefined way?

What do other people want an open app ecosystem to accomplish besides be open and apps that work together in some undefined way?

This is for me the main questions that we need to ask for the meeting. You can put your WHY in the google doc created for the meeting ;)

I agree with your why, no need to add mine. But I'll agree on the doc.

@gregorycassel - that defines open app pretty well. There's a lot of open apps out there. What could make them into an ecosystem?

Actually I don't think there are many if any apps which have every property I referred to in that comment, but I understand that you're trying to define "open app" in a relatively flexible and practical way (and you are of course welcome to do so.)

For instance, many apps fail to provide their users with easy (or any) direct exportable access to data. This creates a key area of social dependence and vulnerability. Thankfully, however, some apps make exporting easy. I doubt that any of them use all of the open organizational principles I'd personally recommend, including open accounting of revenue and expenses. That doesn't seem important right now. It could become important, if and when a lot of money is focused into the development of open app systems.

My next comment will personally address some of the "big picture" questions you ask.

(6) to use without charge for non-commercial purposes.

I would say : (6) to use without charge for commercial and non commercial purposes.

The CC0 license (or MIT for the code) is for me a reference.

Good points regarding open licensing. I quoted that 2015 Collaborative Technology Alliance text for reference, but I greatly prefer the simpler approach which you've indicated.

I know that many software developers may prefer to charge commercial users. I've discussed that with them before, and expect to do so again.

Here is something I have been taking notes on for several years, about what I want in an open app ecosystem: Searching for a breakthrough.

Short version: I want protocols, not platforms. I want to start with a Personator, my own app that represents me, that will meet other Personators and form organizations, which will have their own apps, and we will all make agreements to do things together and then we will do them.

No usernames, no signups, no accounts, just out on the Web together. I want to always interact from my own Personator.

Possible technical infrastructures include Secure Scuttlebutt, Solid, and Ceptr. Each of them has problems today. I think this is also possible to do in other ways.

This might not suit everybody. But think about it anyway. @lynnfoster also wrote a head design for a Personator.

My goal in sharing these is to get people to consider something other than plugins for platforms as the only way to do things. But no, I have not created any of these things yet, although I have experienced them in the Scuttleverse, so I know they can work.

P.S. the name Personator came from Connor Turland who was heavily involved in CTA version 1.

Short version: I want protocols, not platforms. I want to start with a Personator, my own app that represents me, that will meet other Personators and form organizations, which will have their own apps, and we will all make agreements to do things together and then we will do them.

From my perspective, that seems practically identical to the reason I've written Peer-to-Peer Digital Networking. However, that document is still slightly incomplete, and (as I've mentioned elsewhere) I'm focusing on Modular Organization Terminology to facilitate the development of a shorter and hopefully clearer edition of P2PDN.

A few related tidbits:

1. From P2PDN: "unique persistent user identities are crucially important for the development of mutually responsible relationships"
2. More recently, from MOT: "A personal agent is an agent which directly represents a unique person within a specific social context." https://github.com/gcassel/Modular-Organization-Terminology/blob/master/compound-terms/personal-agent.md

I'm not trying to derail the subject of defining an Open App Ecosystem, or to direct attention to my specific references above. I'm just hoping to generally indicate how I'm trying to work on what I perceive to be infrastructural needs.

With that said: @bobhaugen , you asked here earlier:

What do other people want an open app ecosystem to accomplish besides be open and apps that work together in some undefined way?

I have many goals in life for many reasons, but my intentions in media networking & open app systems relate closely and strictly to a deep personal devotion to the power of truth and empathy. I really do believe that more effective organizational forms can support truth and empathy in our general interactions. That relates closely to the current closing paragraph of Agreement Based Governance:

Organizational clarity has been a chronic failure point for complex groups and institutions. Major improvements in social tools and techniques, however, are well within reach. These improvements will dramatically favor collective activities which are based on direct agreements instead of violent, coercive, confusing or deceptive forces.