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

Wed Jul 10 18:28:43 UTC 2013

stef, that Baffler article is excellent.

Aaron, I actually believe that oftentimes, more headway can be made by
forging ahead with a new idea rather than trying to convert existing ideas.
 If the idea has legs, then it will start to change things on its own, and
eventually existing ideas will need to enter into a dialogue with it
somehow.  When a new idea is tiny, there's no reason for existing ideas to
answer its call and the new upstart ends up seeming like a strident outlier.

Picture stickers or flyers with ¡Libre! at a conference or cultural event,
seen around works that embodied its spirit.  The curious would ask, 'What
is that?' And the advocate would tell them what kinds of work it stands for
and which it doesn't.  When either Open or Free are brought up, that simply
adds to the grounds for discussion from there.

My point is just that I doubt existing efforts are likely to wholeheartedly
adopt the word and replace prior terms with it, until its clear that Libre
has opened up truly new possibilities.  Certainly not when so much scarred
earth lays between Open and Free as it is.  Until a new framework for
viewing the word is established on its own, people are bound to see it as
part of the existing framework, a simple lever between Open and Free.
 (Actually, the picture of a flag marked Libre planted in a battlefield,
with Open and Free on either side, is nearly a compelling image right out
of the box...)

It just seems to me that advocates of Libre should get busy on the Libre
Project, and over time new advocates will come to them.

- Heath

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013, Aaron Wolf wrote:

> 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<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>> 'hrezabek at icarusinterstellar.org');>
>> @starshipcongrss
>>  <https://twitter.com/StarshipCongrss>starshipcongress.com
>>
>>
>

-- 

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/cd0e9c11/attachment.html>