[okfn-discuss] [FC-discuss] A Free, Libre and Open Glossary
wolftune at gmail.com
Thu Aug 8 05:59:35 UTC 2013
Congratulations on superb work so far!!
This is a valuable resource and needs to be published on a wiki somewhere
reliable. What should happen, I think, is FOSsil Bank needs to move to a
fully FLO platform and then include this glossary.
Otherwise, Snowdrift.coop would love to host this on our wiki (we are very
close to functional enough and having legal terms and things to invite more
widespread participation). Wherever it is, we will reference it for sure!
The broad scope of FLO outlined here matches precisely our scope.
A few minor points:
The Stallman quote of a spider plant "goes" to another place is found in
his biography, but that's really a poor wording and I heard him elsewhere
describe the analogy. The word is "grows" and was probably misquoted.
Spider plants don't "go" places, they "grow" i.e. it should be "it grows in
other places" etc.
"The term ‘share-alike’ is broader than copyleft: it includes copyleft, but
also non-FLO licences that require adaptations to be released under the
same licence as the original."
I do not think that is accurate at all. Copyleft and share-alike mean
essentially the same thing. It just happens that CC used the term
share-alike and not all CC licenses are FLO whereas copyleft is generally
used for Free Software which is FLO. But it is simply not descriptive of
real usage to say that people use these terms to mean different things.
They are identical, it's just that there's no context in which people
happen to describe copyleft non-FLO. But if there is a non-FLO license that
requires keeping the license, it will STILL be called "copyleft". Copyleft
does not itself mean FLO.
The Tim O'Reilly post is missing. I'd like to read it though.
Please add the greatest IP backronym: "Imaginary Property" which is not
especially harsh but is especially accurate.
Given that it is so confusing, is it not the case that "Open source
journalism:" could refer to actual open source, as in the source material
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Chris Sakkas <sanglorian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I've drafted 'Release one', which forks A Free, Libre and Open Glossary so
> that the glossary is frozen at a particular time and in a particular
> format. The OKFN Pad will remain as a live document - feel free to continue
> to edit it and comment upon it, of course.
> Please give your feedback on Release one, which I've attached in ODT and
> PDF forms. It is a 26 page A5 document. Sorry for using Arial and Calibri
> as typefaces - I'm on a public computer which won't let me install others.
> The public version of Release one (which I intend to publish on this
> Monday) will use FLO fonts (perhaps Junction - but shout out if you've got
> a favourite).
> The glossary has been edited so that key concepts often fit on a single
> page. (This may be more apparent from the PDF than the ODT).
> *Chris Sakkas
> **Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki <http://fossilbank.wikidot.com/> and the Living
> Libre blog <http://www.livinglibre.com> and Twitter feed<https://twitter.com/#%21/living_libre>
> On 14 July 2013 07:08, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
>> > On 10/07/13 16:33, heath rezabek wrote:
>> >> Actually, given the Open Definition, I'd disagree. Open is a term that
>> >> really can be defined, and as such I also think it's a strong candidate
>> >> for universal usage.
>> >> http://opendefinition.org/
>> > The OKD is a (superior) adaptation of the OSD which is an adaptation of
>> > DFSG which is a Free Software definition...
>> Superior to the OSD or some other adaptation of the OSD that I don't know
>> If the former, I'm curious which changes make it superior in your
>> The OD (the 'K' has been dropped, FWIW) is the OSD, with the following
>> * (2) Source Code at no more than reasonable reproduction cost
>> replaced with (1) Access to work no more than reproduction cost and
>> (4) Absence of technological restriction (source probably stricter
>> than no technical restrictions; FWIW
>> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition includes both)
>> * (4) Integrity split into (5) Attribution and (6) Integrity, allowing
>> the non-software equivalent of badgeware (is that a good thing!?) and
>> not specifying whether requiring patch distribution of modifications
>> is OK
>> * (10) Technological neutrality dropped
>> And software->knowledge and other small word and number changes.
>> Eventually OD 1.2 will probably add another clause specifying that no
>> restrictions other than those mentioned are permissible (since some
>> government licenses have had restrictions that are not allowed by
>> implication, but thought to be helpful to be explicit).
>> > "Open" was historically chosen as a nice, fuzzy, politically uncommitted
>> > buzzword. I respect the OSI and OKF's choice of it, and there certainly
>> > contexts where "openness" is a meaningful virtue, but there are also
>> > contexts where it's a way of avoiding saying "freedom". This is one of
>> More troubling than word choice is the tendency to use word choice to
>> avoid making substantive and convincing arguments that hold up to
>> critique that one's desired ordering is good, feasible, important,
>> okfn-discuss mailing list
>> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at freeculture.org
> FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the okfn-discuss