[okfn-discuss] Problems of nomenclature

[Kim Tucker]

PS Generic version of this response with slightly improved wording:
https://librelens.wordpress.com/

On 4 March 2012 01:10, Kim Tucker <kctucker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris and all,
>
> Libre means free as in freedom.
>
> The definition is well established and may be found at:
>
> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
>
> and in the context of libre knowledge:
>
> http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_Knowledge
>
> As you know, these definitions are rooted in the free software definition:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
> A libre resource either complies with the definition or it doesn't.
> There is no "semi-libre" (the FSF dropped that term "semi-free" some
> time ago and the libre knowledge communities I know have never used
> it).
>
>> My first problem is that I don’t have a term
>> to describe libre AND semi-libre licences that
>> have a copyleft-like condition.
>
> CC-by-sa is the most pro-freedom licence in the Creative Commons suite
> - it is unambiguously a _libre_ licence. The ShareAlike in this case
> is an assurance of freedom into the future in the face of the current
> state of copyright which came about along these lines:
>
> http://wikieducator.org/Brief_History_of_Copyright
>
> CC-by-nc-sa on the other hand is (among other things) an assurance of
> a restriction (non-commercial use only) into the future. It is
> unambiguously non-libre.
>
> A few Libre Licences are listed here:
> http://wikieducator.org/Libre_License
>
> and the following article encourages the various "open" communities to
> rather say "libre" in those cases where "libre" is actually meant -
> i.e. when the licence upholds all the freedoms (e.g. when the resource
> to which they are referring is licensed cc-by, cc-by-sa, cc0 or pd).
>
> http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre
>
> The "open education" community, for example, includes institutions who
> include the NC restriction in their licences.
>
> Thanks
>
> Kim
>
> PS It will help with clarity of thinking to avoid the term "IP" (which
> appeared in Chris's e-mail below):
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
> we are not talking about anything that has the rivalrous properties of
> "property".
>
> PPS For software, some people say "free/libre and open" source
> software (FLOSS) which cover both open and libre software -
> understanding that all libre software is "open source" but some (a
> very small sub-set of) open source software is non-libre.
>
> PPPS More on Libre Knowledge:
> http://wikieducator.org/Libre_knowledge
>
> ----
>
> On 3 March 2012 13:04, Chris Sakkas <sanglorian at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> My first problem is that I don’t have a term to describe libre AND
>> semi-libre licences that have a copyleft-like condition.
>>
>> For example, the OpenContent License is a licence that forbids commercial
>> reproduction and requires copies to come under the same 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
>> 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’?
>>
>> What about ‘share-alike-like’? (That’s a joke)
>>
>> My second problem is that I don’t have a term to describe libre AND
>> semi-libre content.
>>
>> 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, 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.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Is there a term for ‘libre and semi-libre’ that we can use instead of ‘open
>> content’?
>>
>>
>> Thanks folks!
>>
>>
>> Chris Sakkas
>> Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki and the Living Libre blog and microblog.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> okfn-discuss mailing list
>> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>>