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

[Aaron Wolf]

I agree, Heath. "Libre" is ideal. The practical concern, as I said is: if
we can't make the OKFN change its name, etc. then we will be stuck dealing
with explaining "open" vs "free". I think the only way to get "Libre" to
become the standard is to get these formal organizations to all embrace it
together, and I don't know how or if that's possible.

I suspect that "open" is too entrenched. Unfortunately, the "open" message
is too entrenched too, as I know many software developers who don't see why
any non-programmer should care whether a program is open source, and I also
know lots of Open Science folks who don't understand why they should care
about whether a gratis service like Google Docs is non-open non-free.

Yes, the solution is clearly the word "libre". If you tell someone: "Google
Docs is non-open" they don't get it or care. If you tell someone: "Google
Docs is non-free" they say, "I didn't pay anything." If you tell someone
"Google Docs is non-libre" they will not understand but will say, "what is
libre?" The answer is: "It's a Spanish word, it means like liberty,
something that isn't restricting your liberties", then the person will
totally understand. Google Docs is non-libre means it restricts your
liberties in some way. And that matters to people in a way that saying it
is non-open does not.

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com


On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM, heath rezabek <heath.rezabek at gmail.com>wrote:

> I understand the debate a little better now.  Another possibility is to
> proactively promote Libre as a 'middle way', and just not entangle it with
> the history of free/open debate.
>
> This could even be more fruitful over time than trying to change the
> entrenched connotations and definitions of either free or open.  Libre
> becomes a term for where the free/open debate perhaps should have ended up.
>  (But didn't.)
>
> - Heath
>
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013, Bastien wrote:
>
>> Hi Aaron and all,
>>
>> Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Agreed with the rest of this email, but Stef's claim was about "open
>> source", not "open".
>>
>> --
>>  Bastien
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Heath Rezabek
> Outreach & Collaborations Coordinator, Starship Congress
> USA (512) 507-1101
> hrezabek at icarusinterstellar.org
> @starshipcongrss
>  <https://twitter.com/StarshipCongrss>starshipcongress.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20130710/06e2383b/attachment.html>