[okfn-discuss] Problems of nomenclature

Fri Mar 9 02:20:40 UTC 2012

Hi Chris and all,

Apologies for the delay and for some repetition below.

I will start with the short answer and then try to make sense of the question.

Short answer:

> So, in summary:
> Is there a neutral term for libre and semi-libre viral licences?

First, please avoid the confusing term semi-libre.

Which of the following do you mean? [the CC case in square brackets]

A. (libre) and (semi-libre viral licences) [(cc-by, cc-by-sa) and (cc-by-nc-sa)]
or
B. (libre and semi-libre) viral licences [(cc-by-sa and cc-by-nc-sa)]
?

Either way we get a box of oranges and apples.

I assume you mean B.

Then perhaps: "share-alike licences".

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

Perhaps "shareable works",

NB: to reiterate, the term "semi-libre"/"semi-free" has no place in
the definitions linked to below.

Personally, for clarity, I would have preferred "open" to remain the
broad and inclusive term covering the libre and other "some rights
reserved" categories, with "libre" being used (by everyone, including
the "open" education and other "open" communities) to mean free as in
freedom with a very specific definition in this context:
http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre

------- end of the short answer extracted from below ----------

The following outlines my thoughts while considering these questions
in the hope that they help somehow.

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

...

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

Your problem statements are ambiguous, confounded by the term
"semi-libre", a term which should be avoided. As an advocate of "libre
knowledge" I have generally found the prior reasoning (backed by
experience) of the libre software movement to be sound (they dropped
the term semi-free).

In this context "free" (as in freedom/ free speech) and "libre" are synonymous.

A knowledge resource, or piece of software or cultural work is either
free/libre (if it complies with the definition) or it is
non-free/non-libre (if it does not).

The following URLs provide definitions relevant to this context which
include one or other or both of the words (free/libre):

Free Software == Libre Software:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Free Knowledge == Libre Knowledge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_knowledge
http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge#Libre_Knowledge_Definition

Free Cultural Works == Libre Cultural Works:
http://freedomdefined.org/Libre

Perhaps the following, using Creative commons licences as examples, will help.

CC-BY is a libre licence as it upholds the freedoms defined at the URLs above.

CC-BY-SA is a libre licence and also assures the freedoms in future
derived works.

CC-BY-NC-SA is a non-libre licence as it includes a restriction on
use. It also requires perpetuation of this restriction in derived
works (NC).

Categories "Libre licence" and "Libre work" could be used to cover
libre licences and libre works with or without a copyleft requirement
(e.g. CC-BY and CC-BY-SA). "Libre work" would also cover works in the
public domain (see http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/ ).

> ... 'reciprocal' ...

I agree that this is questionable, and prefer "share-alike".
Is CC-BY-NC-SA reciprocal (in a balanced way) between reader and author?

I am reminded of an article by Alan Story: 'Balanced' copyright: not a
magic solving word:
http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/02/27/%E2%80%98balanced%E2%80%99-copyright-not-a-magic-solving-word/
which may be of interest to some people on this list.

> The term ‘viral’ seems perfect, but according to Wikipedia
> it’s 'pejorative'. Maybe we could ‘take it back’?

<infectious smile :-)>

> I think we should avoid using it [open content licences] as a category. We need an
> unambiguous term that DEFINITELY means ‘semi-libre and libre content’ to use for
> the category as a whole.

I am not so anti the category "open content licences". Historically,
most of the first educational institutions to share learning resources
and publications on the Internet used non-libre licences (e.g. for
non-commercial / educational use only). Use of licences with such
restrictions in the open education community and for open access
journals etc. is still significant. It would not be right (imo) to
nominally exclude them as members of the open education community when
many institutions do not share at all. The OER community for example
has been successful in convincing some such institutions to drop their
NC and ND restrictions by welcoming them into the OER community and
educating them about "openness".

Personally, I would have preferred "open" to remain the broad and
inclusive term covering the libre and other "some rights reserved"
categories, with "libre" being used to mean free as in freedom:
http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre

If "open" is not acceptable for the broad inclusive term, would the
word "shareable" e.g. for "shareable content licences" work? This
would cover all the CC licenses + CC0 and public domain.

The word "content" has been criticised -
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content . One
alternative is "resource" suggesting "shareable resource licences".
For some the word resource implies scarcity which for (non-rivalrous)
digital resources is not applicable.

My last suggestion for today is "shareable works licences".

> So, in summary:

> Is there a neutral term for libre and semi-libre viral licences?

Which of the following do you mean? [the CC case in square brackets]

A. (libre) and (semi-libre viral licences) [(cc-by, cc-by-sa) and (cc-by-nc-sa)]
or
B. (libre and semi-libre) viral licences [(cc-by-sa and cc-by-nc-sa)]
?

Either way we get a box of oranges and apples.

I assume you mean B.

Then perhaps: "share-alike licences".

Above all, please drop the term "semi-libre" - it confusing.

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

Perhaps "shareable works" (but do reconsider "open").

Hope that helps

Kim

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
>