Protocols are, by their very nature, open. If you can't read the protocol specification then you can't very well implement it, can you?

As others pointed out, OATH's claims of "open source" have little meaning when compared to other authentication protocols such as SAML. When you include the entire Liberty Alliance specifications as well as the Web Services Initiative protocols and methods (as devised by Microsoft and IBM) there's nary a proprietary bit of code involved. Actually, there's no code involved at all. Protocols are, by their very nature, open. If you can't read the protocol specification then you can't very well implement it, can you?

Syncthing uses an open and documented protocol, and likewise the security mechanisms in use are well defined and visible in the source code. Resilio Sync uses an undocumented, closed protocol with unknown security properties.

Syncthing uses an open and documented protocol, and likewise the security mechanisms in use are well defined and visible in the source code. Resilio Sync uses an undocumented, closed protocol with unknown security properties.

CR 1.0 can be used by people to communicate consent and the sharing of personal information once it is provided.

During the first era of the internet — from the 1980s through the early 2000s — internet services were built on open protocols that were controlled by the internet community. This meant that people or organizations could grow their internet presence knowing the rules of the game wouldn’t change later on.

During the first era of the internet — from the 1980s through the early 2000s — internet services were built on open protocols that were controlled by the internet community