[okfn-discuss] Draft of 'Libre' Wikipedia page

Fri Mar 9 15:38:25 UTC 2012

*Using or Avoiding ‘Intellectual Property’*

> There is no need to avoid the term intellectual property. To avoid a
> commonly understood term is to introduce ambiguity. Even if you feel that
> IP should not exist, or should be severely altered, you are doing readers a
> disservice by avoiding it. (Tim)
>
The reason for avoiding the term "intellectual property" is because the
> term is so broad, and covers so many different forms of law, that it can
> become meaningless and so becomes a purely propaganda term, usually by
> oppressors.
>
> The laws that libre is concerned with are copyright laws, and so not
> patent law, nor trademark law, nor design rights law. (David Hirst)
>
Tim, I think you’re right that it’s not productive to talk about IP without
saying its name. I’ll use IP when I need to refer to the category as a
whole, but avoid it if it’s at all possible to refer to copyright,
trademark, patent or design law in the specific. After all, we also do our
readers a disservice by using general terms where specific ones will do.

David, I’m not sure that it’s so clear cut. Presumably a libre licence will
deal with copyright only (although couldn’t one that deals with *sui
generis *database rights also be considered libre?), but a libre work has a
number of requirements beyond simply being under a libre licence and I
think if it were encumbered by – say – a patent that would make the
resource non-libre.
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 8 March 2012 21:22, David Hirst <david at davidhirst.com> wrote:

> The reason for avoiding the term "intellectual property" is because the
> term
> is so broad, and covers so many different forms of law, that it can become
> meaningless and so becomes a purely propaganda term, usually by oppressors.
> The laws that libre is concerned with are copyright laws, and so not patent
> law, nor trademark law, nor design rights law.
>
> It would seem to me possible for libre software, when used in some ways, to
> violate a patent yet still remain libre. I believe Europe still considers
> pure software to be unpatentable, but its actions can be patentable. But is
> this true, and should the distinction be made here?
>
> Regards
> David
> David Hirst
> Mobile:  +44 7831 405443
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: okfn-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org
> [mailto:okfn-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Tim McNamara
> Sent: 08 March 2012 20:07
> To: Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list
> Subject: Re: [okfn-discuss] Draft of 'Libre' Wikipedia page
>
> Some remarks regarding the terminology.
>
> There is no need to avoid the term intellectual property. To avoid a
> commonly understood term is to introduce ambiguity. Even if you feel that
> IP
> should not exist, or should be severely altered, you are doing readers a
> disservice by avoiding it.
>
> Secondly, saying something is "not proprietary" because something is used
> for non-commercial uses or fits a particular definition of openness is
> false. I know it is very common in the open source software community to
> make a distinction between free software[*] and proprietary software.
> However, free software is still owned by its creators, or potentially its
> assignees, and thus still has a proprietor. It is therefore proprietary.
> The
> only non-proprietary works those are works in the public domain, precisely
> because they have no owner.
>
> I don't have much of a stake in the article, and am perfectly happy to
> yield
> to others' editorial opinions on what services the readers best.
>
> [*] Free in the rms sense.
>
> On 9 March 2012 08:55, Chris Sakkas <sanglorian at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks folks!
> >
> > Rob:
> >
> > I've kept OER and OA quarantined under the 'Related concepts' heading
> > to make it clear that while there's overlap they're not libre
> > in-and-of-themselves.
> >
> > I use 'proprietary' to mean 'non-libre', which would mean that NC and
> > ND are proprietary - are you using a different definition?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Chris Sakkas
> > Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki and the Living Libre blog and microblog.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6 March 2012 00:00, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 05/03/12 09:37, Chris Sakkas wrote:
> >> >
> >> > But meanwhile I was inspired to return to a Wikipedia article I
> >> > drafted last year: 'Libre'. I think libre warrants a separate
> >> > article (It's currently at 'Gratis versus Libre'), and you can read
> >> > what I've written so far at my sandbox page
> >> > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sanglorian/sandbox)
> >> >
> >> > Feel free to contribute, either by editing my sandbox directly or
> >> > by discussing the article on this mailing list.
> >>
> >> The article is very clearly written and well sourced.
> >>
> >> I agree that the term "intellectual property" should be avoided.
> >>
> >> Concepts that have been identified as potentially including non-free
> >> works in this discussion (such as OA/OER/Open Content) should not be
> >> included as sub-categories or types of Libre, which I would argue is
> >> used specifically within discussion of Free Software as a synonym for
> >> OSD-Free.
> >>
> >> NC/ND are not proprietary, they are non-free because they do not fit
> >> the common definitions of "Free" or "Open" (FSD/DFSG/OSD/Freedom
> >> Defined/Open Definition). Within the terms of reference of this
> >> discussion they are non-libre public licenses.
> >>
> >> These comments aside I recognize the article's description of Libre
> >> from my knoweldge of it, and the article has some very interesting
> >> references of which I was previously not aware.
> >>
> >> - Rob.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> okfn-discuss mailing list
> >> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > okfn-discuss mailing list
> > okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120309/a34c9a39/attachment.html>