[okfn-discuss] Problems of nomenclature

[Kim Tucker]

Hi Chris and all

> Kim:
>
> I’m not married to the term ‘semi-libre’, and I’d be happy to hear
> alternatives. How about ‘pseudo-libre’?

I suspect that what you think of as semi-libre I think of as non-libre
on account of one or more restrictions (NC, ND, education only, ...).

Others have contributed some great ideas already, some of which might
cover this?

> That would emphasise that the connection between libre and
> proprietary commons content is a superficial one.

"proprietary" is another word for "non-libre"

The connection is clear: they are mutually exclusive.

> But people do recognise a class of some rights reserved works that can be
> shared at the very least verbatim and noncommercially, and I think it’s
> counter-productive for us to refuse to recognise that class.

Verbatim and non-commercial works are recognised as non-libre.
They are "shareable" and "publically available" but non-libre.

> That will just
> result in people wrongly applying the terms ‘free’, ‘libre’ or ‘open’ to the
> supercategory which is the worst of all possible worlds.

So, let's stay true to the meaning of "libre" as used in the
definitions (links again below), and come up with something else.

> Definition is not endorsement.

"Libre" is used in the sense defined in the definitions below
consistently in free/libre software/ knowledge and culture
communities. I hope the open knowledge and open access communities
choose to do so too.

>> 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.
>
> I agree with you. But there are both libre and non-libre public licences
> that have a share-alike condition, that is they require adaptations to come
> under the same licence as the original work. At the moment, this set of
> licences and the works that come under them are being described as
> ‘copyleft’, which is just making things worse.

I am not sure of the value of such a category as it lumps together
licences with different intents such as the libre cc-by-sa and
non-libre cc-by-nc-sa licences.

If it is needed, "share-alike" seems ok to me as it can be applied
generally (not just the ShareAlike of CC licences).

> What if instead of referring to these public licences as being ‘share-alike
> licences’ or ‘reciprocal licences’ (as I originally suggested), which would
> lump libre and non-libre together, we refer to them as having ‘reciprocal
> licensing terms’?
> That way, we avoid suggesting that libre and non-libre share-alike licences
> fall into the same category, but we recognise that both of them have the
> same mechanism – required reciprocity – even though the consequences –
> enclosed libre or enclosed non-libre – are very different.

That is a good idea, though 'reciprocal' has been discussed (looking
ahead) implying non-libre.

So far, if you must have such a category, "sharealike"
[licence/content] seems best.

>>
>> 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".
>
> I am not giving up on the term IP any time soon, I’m afraid. I’m happy to
> discuss why in a different thread, but I’d like to keep this one focused on
> nomenclature in Wikipedia articles.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Which open source software is non-libre?
>
> I’ve also suggested ‘free, libre and open cultural content’ (FLOCC) for
> content, but that’s another topic for another time.

Sure. Feel free to let me know if/when you'd like to discuss these.
Most of my thoughts and musings are under Libre Knowledge on
WikiEducator:

http://wikieducator.org/Libre_knowledge

Cheers for now

Kim

PS The definition links again:

The definition of libre (free as in freedom) is rooted in the free
software definition:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

and its meaning is retained in various relevant definitions such as:

The Libre Knowledge definition:
http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge#Libre_Knowledge_Definition

Libre Cultural Works Definition
http://freedomdefined.org/Libre

On 4 March 2012 11:46, 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.
>
> David:
>
> ‘Commons content’ is an interesting idea. It would emphasise the connection
> to Creative Commons, which does make up the bulk of commons content. It also
> solves a problem I was having with common content, which was that converting
> it across to ‘common knowledge’ and ‘common software’ overlapped with
> current usage of those terms. 'Commons knowledge' and 'commons software',
> however, are non-ambiguous.
>
> What do other people think of ‘commons content’? (Assuming that we have a
> term for that class of content at all; obviously the objections to
> associating libre and proprietary commons content by placing them in one
> category remain).
>
> Kim:
>
> I’m not married to the term ‘semi-libre’, and I’d be happy to hear
> alternatives. How about ‘pseudo-libre’? That would emphasise that the
> connection between libre and proprietary commons content is a superficial
> one.
>
> But people do recognise a class of some rights reserved works that can be
> shared at the very least verbatim and noncommercially, and I think it’s
> counter-productive for us to refuse to recognise that class. That will just
> result in people wrongly applying the terms ‘free’, ‘libre’ or ‘open’ to the
> supercategory which is the worst of all possible worlds.
>
> Definition is not endorsement.
>>
>> 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.
>
> I agree with you. But there are both libre and non-libre public licences
> that have a share-alike condition, that is they require adaptations to come
> under the same licence as the original work. At the moment, this set of
> licences and the works that come under them are being described as
> ‘copyleft’, which is just making things worse.
>
> What if instead of referring to these public licences as being ‘share-alike
> licences’ or ‘reciprocal licences’ (as I originally suggested), which would
> lump libre and non-libre together, we refer to them as having ‘reciprocal
> licensing terms’?
>
> That way, we avoid suggesting that libre and non-libre share-alike licences
> fall into the same category, but we recognise that both of them have the
> same mechanism – required reciprocity – even though the consequences –
> enclosed libre or enclosed non-libre – are very different.
>>
>> 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".
>
> I am not giving up on the term IP any time soon, I’m afraid. I’m happy to
> discuss why in a different thread, but I’d like to keep this one focused on
> nomenclature in Wikipedia articles.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Which open source software is non-libre?
>
> I’ve also suggested ‘free, libre and open cultural content’ (FLOCC) for
> content, but that’s another topic for another time.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Thanks for the discussion 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
>