[okfn-discuss] Problems of nomenclature

[Rob Myers]

On 03/03/12 12:04, Chris Sakkas wrote:
> 
> I’ve been trying to sort out the Wikipedia pages relating to IP
> minimalism (libre, Creative Commons, copyright reform, etc.). However,
> I’ve run into terminology problems for works, licences and concepts that
> straddle the free/libre-semi-free/semi-libre boundary.

There aren't any. There are only free and non-free works.

> My first problem is that I don’t have a term to describe libre AND
> semi-libre licences that have a copyleft-like condition.

Why is such a term required? It would group unlike things together.

If I have to lump all different kinds of non-EULA copyright licenses
together I just call them "alternative copyright licenses".

> For example, the OpenContent License is a licence that forbids
> commercial reproduction and requires copies to come under the same

It's deprecated and only of historic interest. Given its NC restriction
it's also badly named.

> licence. We can’t describe it as copyleft because copyleft works are
> libre. I would call it ‘share-alike’, but that term seems to be used
> exclusively for Creative Commons licences. I thought about ‘reciprocal’,
> but references to reciprocal licences online seem to use the term as a
> synonym for copyleft (and therefore wouldn’t include noncommercial
> licences; see for example

"Reciprocal" is a better term than "viral" as it actually describes an
effect of the licenses.

> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-license2/). The
> term ‘viral’ seems perfect, but according to Wikipedia it’s
> ‘pejorative’. Maybe we could ‘take it back’?

"Viral" is pejorative and inaccurate as copyleft does not infect its
neighbours by force. Rather it is inherited by adaptations/derivatives
that choose to make use of the work that it covers.

> What about ‘share-alike-like’? (That’s a joke)

"Broken".

> My second problem is that I don’t have a term to describe libre AND
> semi-libre content.

There really is no reason to group these together other than to give
nonfree works the cachet of free works. And that isn't something that we
should be helping to do.

> As I noted on its Wikipedia page
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_content#Definition), the term ‘open
> content’ is now being used for semi-libre/semi-free licences as well as
> libre/free ones. This follows the word open’s use in ‘open access’ and
> ‘open educational resources’, but means that open content-free content
> no longer mirror each other like open source-free software do.
>
> That’s not a problem in and of itself,

It most definitely is a problem in and of itself!

> but it’s lead to a messy category
> on Wikipedia: ‘open content licences’ with ‘free content licences’ as a
> subcategory. Until the definition of ‘open content’ settles as either
> ‘libre content’ or ‘semi-libre and libre content’, I think we should
> avoid using it as a category. We need an unambiguous term that
> DEFINITELY means ‘semi-libre and libre content’ to use for the category
> as a whole.

Why?

Which category of actual things are we talking about here?

> However, I’m not actually sure what that term could be. I use ‘common
> content’ myself, following from the Common Content project
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Content). However, that project is
> long gone and the term is not in wide use.
>
> So, in summary:
> 
> Is there a neutral term for libre and semi-libre viral licences?

*Please* don't call them "viral" licences. They are licences that
require adaptations/derivatives to be placed under the same license, so
"reciprocal" is a much better term. Apart from anything else, "viral" is
a pejorative synonym for copyleft.

And please don't call non-free works semi-libre. There aren't Wikipedia
pages for being a little bit pregnant, greenish red, or dead and alive
things so I don't see the need for making up a category such as "free
and almost but not actually free".

> Is there a term for ‘libre and semi-libre’ that we can use instead of
> ‘open content’?

"Some rights reserved"? But to the extent that "open content" is a
coherent term it's a synonym for free culture, which means that
"semi-libre" has no place within it. If Wikipedia is used to help
launder the confusion, that will not be a helpful development.

I don't think helping to create this confusion is useful. Not for Open
Knowledge, at any rate.

- Rob.