[okfn-discuss] Problems of nomenclature

[Chris Sakkas]

As an update on the second half of the discussion, about a term for
copyleft-like terms, I've settled on 'share-alike' rather than
'reciprocal'. That's because I could find a reference to share-alike that
was broader than copyleft (in the Open Data Handbook!) but 'reciprocal
licence' seems to have only been used to refer to copyleft licences.

If you like you can check out the changes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share-alike

Cheers,

*Chris Sakkas
**Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki <http://fossilbank.wikidot.com/> and the
Living Libre blog and microblog <https://twitter.com/#%21/living_libre>.*



On 4 March 2012 12:33, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Chris Sakkas <sanglorian at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> As Mike mentioned, I’ve changed my application to ‘Public copyright
>> licenses’ and it’d be great to have your support over at Wikipedia
>> (although it doesn’t seem to be controversial). Does anyone know how long
>> the voting process takes, and whether I need to make the change myself or
>> if an admin will do it?
>>
>>  *Mike: *
>>
>>  I sent an email to Peter Suber yesterday mentioning that ‘libre OA’ is
>> inaccurate and wondering if he’d be prepared to change it.
>>
>
> I have copied him into my latest post.
>
>>  *Peter:*
>>
>>  What do you think about the term ‘commons open access’ for works where
>> some permissions have been granted? Then ‘libre OA’ could be reclaimed for
>> truly free and open works.
>>
>>
>> Answering several points. We have a very difficult challenge. In essence:
>
>    - most people don't know there is an issue
>    - most of those that know don't care
>    - People use common English words and these accidentally or
>    deliberately get used in a wide range of incompatible ways.
>    - Precision is critical. It may come up in court, and it is one of the
>    few tools we have have for constructive discourse.
>    - It is hard to create precision. Licences are precise and can take
>    years to create. Home-brewed protocols and licences are often flawed
>
> So I don't care what words are used as long as there is a clear
> unambiguous agreement as to what they mean. We use "CC-BY" - there is no
> ambiguity. We use Panton Principles. There is no ambiguity. I wish Libre
> were unambiguous but it isn't.
>
> The only solution is to either re-use words which are well defined (and I
> am struggling to find any) or to create one's own AND create a definition.
> It is very dangerous to use common English words and that's why "libre" is
> potentially so valuable and why it is such a problem if it is devalued.
>
> My own preference is for clear acronyms pointing to clear definitions:
> CC-BY (NOT "Creative Commons" which is almost meaningless operationally),
> BOAI, or BBB. Panton Principles. Open Bibliographic Principles.
>
> The OSI (software, not OSF) solve this by having an organization which
> collates and approves F/OSS licences.
>
> *The OSI are the stewards of the Open Source Definition (OSD)<http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd>and the community-recognized body for reviewing and approving licenses as
> OSD-conformant.*
>
> This is ideal. We know what we are talking about when we say "Apache 2.0",
> "GPL", "copyleft", in the OSI context. Unfortunately the OA community has
> remained completely uninterested in such an organization for OA.  I have
> rasied this problem consistently over the last 10 years and been dismissed
> as low priority. Richard Poynder agrees on the need for it but thinks it's
> too late to make happen. So it costs us billions (sic) in restricted
> access, high costs, lost value.
>
> The OKF has done this successfully for knowledge in general. I tend to say
> OKD-Open frequently (I try never to say "open" except in an OKF context
> where everyone understands. I don't think the OKF should enter the morass
> of OA at the moment, but make sure that other areas do not suffer the same
> fate.
>
>> Thanks for the discussion folks,
>>
>> And thanks to you. This is not easy or quick.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20120305/b6104a53/attachment.html>