We all pretty much understand the difference between code and principles. Groklaw used to have (and it may still include) a principle indicated in the site's mission statement:

we are applying open-source principles to research to the extent that they apply.

Open Source Culture?

Some in the open source movement have claimed that open source principles can be applied to technical areas other than computer software, such as digital communication protocols and data storage formats or even open source hardware (for instance the Indian development simputer). Bolder claims extend open source ideas to entirely different fields, such as the dissemination of general knowledge.

Proponents of this view have hailed the Open CourseWare project at MIT, Thacker's article on "Open Source DNA", the "Open Source Cultural Database", openwebschool, and the Wikipedia as examples of applying open source outside the realm of computer software. Skeptics have pointed out that the sharing principle predates the open source movement; for example, the free sharing of information has been institutionalized in the scientific enterprise since at least the 19th century.

Raymond and other founders of the open-source movement have sometimes publicly tried to put the brakes on speculation about applications outside of software, arguing that strong arguments for software openness should not be weakened by overreaching into areas where the story is less compelling. The broader impacts of the open source movement, and the extent of its role in the development of new information sharing procedures, remains to be seen.

• Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold.
• Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable.
• No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no-one can be locked out.
• No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded.

• Debian will remain 100% free
• We will give back to the free software community (see especially this part of the explanation - "so that free works will be widely distributed and used")
• We will not hide problems
• Our priorities are our users and free software
• Works that do not meet our free software standards

As a final comment, I finally came upon the entry for "Openness" at Wikipedia. It is defined as (emphasis added by me):

Openness is related to Open Source and is a philosophy that is being used as the basis of how various groups and organizations operate. It is a relatively new term to describe this general way of doing things.

It is typified by communal management, and open access to the information or material resources for projects; openness to contributions from a diverse range of users/producers, flat hierarchies, and a fluid organisational structure.

Communal management is usually done with decisions being made by some form of consensus decision-making or voting.

It is now being put forward to facilitate the growth of the Open Source and Freeware programming communities. As well as others, particularly activist groups.

A while back I had an article idea buzzing around my head that was rooted in the concept of "the power of open source is in setting it free". By this I mean, the best and most powerful ideas (whether software development or otherwise) get that way because the people who thought them up decided to let go and share with the world. I am reminded of something I once read about no one ever being famous because they were a miser - instead, people become famous for spending their money on worthy purposes and being generous. I think the same may be true in the world of ideas - no idea became powerful by remaining constrained inside a single person's head or shared with very few.