Thank you for your comments!

I think you have expanded on the problems in the author’s definition of “open”. It is too imprecise to build upon.

In a larger context, though, I think it hints how ill-fitting current laws around copyright and patents mesh with software development.

Superficially, there is arguably a trick/trap. Patents work in such a way where if you have people implementing a detailed base, then you have narrowed their path forward, and it becomes much easier to box them in (place a patent mines around them), making it difficult for them to avoid patents once they create interesting combinations of things off that base.

However, to really not place a restriction means you can create anything with that platform and you should never ever bump into any copyright, patent, etc, issues.

Point one seems to me to imply no copyrights, patents, NDAs, etc would be acceptable on anything that leverages an open platform.

If we look at the second option, then we also eliminate copyrights and patents because these favor one individual over all others. Not only does that beneficiary likely gain money or something, but they have unique control to set the rules of the game or to give up that power to anyone of their choosing (at which point we’d still likely have someone else being in the privileged spot).

Is the author effectively saying that copyrights and patents cannot be acceptable on any open platform?