[daveasaurus]

> I don't really understand what it means for physical items like shoes to be open source in the sense that some software is.

Tangentially related, but despite the article's definition of open source: "It's definitely not just software", it's a peeve of mine nonetheless to hear the term "open source" applied in non-software/programming contexts. Especially with some of the examples you've pointed out:

> He also claims he wants to be open source in "how I get around." What would it mean for walking to be open source or closed source? Is it "open source" to ride a bus?

Not sure if I'm alone on this.

[Gormo]

Why is the term "open source" not applicable to any context in which the design of a product is distinct from its final form, and in which that design is conventionally covered by copyrights or patents?

If an architect released a set of standard building plans under an open license, would that not be legitimately "open source"?