[okfn-discuss] [FC-d"iscuss] A Free, Libre and Open Glossary

Wed Jul 10 14:58:34 UTC 2013

Stef, you just posted on the Open Knowledge Foundation list a claim that
"Open" is specifically a suppression of ethics in favor of business aims. I
am sorry but that is nonsense. The OKFN clearly is not using "open" that
way. The historical fact that the term "open source" had connection to
rejecting the FSF's ethical aims does not mean that everyone who uses
"open" is aligning themselves with that view.

Once "open" became common, people who *do* care about ethics have often
used it. You can't go around telling people what they mean. Note also that
"open" has been used for over a century if not much longer in ways that
were meant to imply democratic justice a la the cooperative movement and
elsewhere.

"Open" does not emphasize freedom the way "free" does, but neither does it
inherently reject that. It's perfectly valid to discuss the unfortunate
history of "open source" as trying to downplay the ethics, but it is NOT
valid to imply that anyone who today uses "open" is connected to that
history.

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:19 AM, stef <s at ctrlc.hu> wrote:

> i'd like to propose to fix the sentence:
>
>     However, most of the terms are synonymous (free software and open
> source
>     software) or distinguish between types of FLO work (open data and open
>     source software), not what freedoms are granted for the specific work.
>
> into:
>
>     There is a fundamental difference between free software and open source
>     software, in the context of software open means the deliberate
> suppression
>     of ethical and moral values for business interests.
>
> you could say free software is about learning, sharing, helping others,
> while
> open source is mostly a business term, for products that are free to
> varying
> degrees, depending on the license.
>
> regarding open standards i recommend this for understanding:
> http://www.csrstds.com/openstds.html - please do not make up another
> definition for them, we have enough. ;)
>
> anyway i still wonder about the purpose of this exercise, a lot of these
> terms
> are not new, some are already over-defined (openstandards has at least 30
> definitions), open source has a published definition, just as free
> software,
> why the need to redefine these? i still wonder about the irony and
> legitimacy
> of defining such concepts on a platform that is mostly the opposite of
> those
> concepts.
>
> cheers,s
>
> --
> pgp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/stef.gpg
> pgp fp: FD52 DABD 5224 7F9C 63C6  3C12 FC97 D29F CA05 57EF
> otr fp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/otr.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20130710/acdb3e76/attachment.html>