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

Wed Jul 10 20:49:38 UTC 2013

Heath, that is wonderfully said. One minor issue is that the normal Spanish
(or Portuguese or other Romance languages) term becomes "Software Libre"
instead of "Libre Software". I like the former as the latter sounds like a
clunky Englishified wording. At any rate, I'd be happy to get behind
"Libre" as a focus, although in the short term, I want to work with the
existing infrastructure of Free/Open references.

Anyway, if we're going to aim for Libre, the most prominent starting point
is surely LibreOffice.

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:28 AM, heath rezabek <heath.rezabek at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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>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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> 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/20130710/7aa743b1/attachment.html>