[okfn-discuss] Problems of nomenclature

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Kim Tucker <kctucker at gmail.com> wrote:
> PS Generic version of this response with slightly improved wording:
> https://librelens.wordpress.com/

Is it not a tiny bit ironic that you're using a not 100% libre
platform* to publish this statement? AFAIK wordpress.com does not
publish all of the software it uses, though of course the vast
majority of it is stock wordpress.

https://librelens.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/reminder-libre-means-free-as-in-freedom-and-is-clearly-defined/
says

"In the context of software, some people say “free/libre and open
source” software (FLOSS) which covers both open source software and
libre software – with the understanding that all libre software is
open source (in the sense that the source code is available) but some
(a very small sub-set of) open source software is non-libre (the
source code is available but restricted in use and/or is dependent on
some other non-libre software)."

That's doubly wrong. Don't insist on people using "libre" in a
particular way and then use "open source" to mean mere source
availability, which is absolutely not what it means in these realms.
Also, if you do take it to mean mere source availability, the sub-set
of source available software that is not really FLOSS is large.

Mike

* ie OSSD or Franklin Street Statement compliant. Says me
hypocritically, sending this email from Gmail. Perhaps I should think
more about https://identi.ca/notice/90186361

ps Thanks to Chris Sakkas for changing his proposed rename to "Public
copyright licenses". I endorsed it, maybe others should too :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_3#Category:Open_content_licenses