@hamishcampbell @danie10 @ki @gsymon @EUCommission @long
The #EUcorruption #4opens team is about making public the mess the #EU crew make of tech. And in contrast celebrating when they get anything right.
It's about balance not only criticism #KISS
@danie10 @ki @gsymon @EUCommission Any idea if this is public or private, funding, ownership etc.
Is it based on exiting #FOSS projects or more #techshit to compost? Are they adding to the commons or privatising it?
Who wonts to join the team composting #EU #techshit corruption as they will likely be spending billions on this over the next few years, It could be used for good, but more likely just mess making.
"To start to compost this mess we need to get back to rebooting an alternative, for twenty years I’ve been arguing that we urgently need to reboot a working alternative. A good place to start is the #openweb as the mainstream web is dominated by corporate platforms tightly coupled to capital and intelligence ecosystems. We cannot keep debating inside systems owned by the #NastyFew and expect any structural change.
We need #4opens publishing infrastructure, federated networks with transparent governance and community hosting to build protocol-level resilience infrastructure."
https://hamishcampbell.com/the-nastyfew-are-not-hidden-theyre-integrated/
The #4opens framework is best understood not as ideology or branding, but as a simple set of engineering heuristics for evaluating whether a project will remain usable, forkable, and resilient over time.
Most long-lived #FOSS projects already follow some version of these practices implicitly. The value of #4opens is making those assumptions explicit, so people can quickly understand how a project works, who controls it, and whether it will survive beyond its original maintainers or funding cycle.
In practical terms, the #4opens ask a few straightforward questions:
* Is the development process visible and reviewable?
* Are data formats and interfaces documented and reusable?
* Can someone else run this independently without permission?
* Are governance and decision-making transparent enough that forks remain viable if needed?
These aren’t abstract political goals, they’re lessons learned from decades of broken platforms, abandoned repositories, and “open” projects that centralised control.
For developers and sysadmins, applying the #4opens as a lightweight checklist helps reduce risk:
* Less lock-in to fragile ecosystems.
* Easier collaboration across projects.
* Better long-term maintainability.
* Clearer expectations for contributors and downstream users.
A shared registry or index based on these criteria functions much like early open source directories or package repositories - not as gatekeeping, but as a map. Projects could self-declare alignment and provide verifiable signals about openness, interoperability, and governance structure.
The goal isn’t purity tests or badges for their own sake. It’s about improving signal-to-noise so builders can quickly identify tools that are likely to remain open, portable, and maintainable.
In a landscape where systems drift toward centralisation and corporate capture, the #4opens simply provide a shorthand for practices that help keep the commons viable, without requiring anyone to agree on ideology.