In a recent AP article about mass digitization at Michigan (available here via Salon), my colleague John Wilkin was amusingly misquoted as characterizing some comments of Brewster Kahle’s as “theoretical,” when John meant polemical.” John has a nice blog post on the on the subject, with responses and rejoinders from both Brewster and from Carl Malamud. The question at hand is a little bit theological (with traces of both theoretical and polemical). Just how open do you have to be to be called “open,” and, much to the point, is it reasonable to call something that can be read anywhere in the world by anyone with an internet connection “locked up”?

I commend the discussion to you. It’s partly about the perfect being the enemy of the good (always a problem in policy making).