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

Thu Jul 11 05:28:52 UTC 2013

Thanks for all the responses, folks.

Some people pointed out the irony of hosting a work about FLO on a non-FLO
service (Google Docs). I hadn't heard of the Open Knowledge Pad before this
thread, and was happy to transfer the document over to it.

However, as a general principle, I don't think it's contradictory or
hypocritical to use non-FLO carriers provided a FLO alternative is provided
(as there was with the ODT file attached to the original post). After all,
the document itself was typed on a non-FLO Windows computer (I'm using a
public computer room) and sent via the non-FLO Gmail!

*Benjamin: *I was interested to hear you say that Etherpad is 'more
efficient' than Google Drive. What do you mean by that?

*Gene:* I am planning to make the document publicly available, although I
haven't figured out what form I want it in. Any suggestions?

It's also a bit of a warm up for my planned re-write of Share This Book <
http://livinglibre1.wordpress.com/share-this-book/>, which never quite
accomplished what I wanted.

I'll make sure to discuss the 'free' ambiguity in more depth, and earlier
in the article.

*Karl: *Good point about the answer to the free software question not being
particularly clear. I'll add some more details.

Thanks for linking to the FSF page on IP. I vaguely remember it but it was
good to re-read and – as usual – the great man talks sense.

I'm wary of not mentioning IP at all or only warning against it, since this
is intended as a glossary (albeit a dogmatic and non-alphabetical one). I
do think IP is a coherent (albeit wrongly named) category in the sense that
there are criteria that are satisfied by those within the category and not
satisfied by those outside the category (specifically, all forms of IP are
(a) de jure monopolies on (b) non-rivalrous intangibles). Of course, the
criticism that it is – for most purposes – an overbroad category is a fair
one.

At the very least, though, I'll add in a section on Copyright separate to
the IP one, and link to the Stallman article.

*Aaron: *Thanks for your response, Aaron – and it was good to read your
work on Snowdrift. I don't imagine the glossary will stay on the Etherpad
forever. A wiki could be a good spot for a living version of the document,
but I would like to 'fix' it in a downloadable document as well.

*stef: *In terms of what the purpose of the exercise is, it's to define and
elaborate upon terms that are often confused or blurred by the public. I'm
not redefining them, I'm using the existing definitions.

And as mentioned, it's now available on a free, libre and open platform.

It's a good point that the ideological context of open source and free
software should be addressed. I'll include that in the next redraft. Thanks
also for the link to open standards; I'll link to that or at least draw
upon it in a redraft. And I spent about an hour reading that Baffler
article, but it was worth it.

*Rob: *FLOC works - or FLOCC ('free, libre and open cultural content') or
even FLOCK ('free, libre and open cultural knowledge', to really mix free
cultural works and open knowledge - are all good terms.

*Using 'libre' as a standard or neutral term*

Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion on whether FLO or libre
could serve as the neutral or standard term. One thing that gives me pause
is that some free activists - I'm thinking of Kim Tucker in particular -
have used libre as a non-ambiguous but no less ideological synonym for
'free'. In other words, it is still used to emphasise the ethical side of
FLO in contrast to the pragmatic term 'open'.

However, my personal preference remains using 'libre' as the neutral or
standard term - as you can see from my blog and on the FOSsil Bank wiki!

And as Aaron says, settling on libre isn't a substitute for clearly
defining 'free' and 'open' as well, because the terms 'free' and 'open'
will still remain in public and community use.

*'Ransom method'*

Thanks for your suggestions. I'll use 'threshold pledge system' as the
general term, and then suggest street performer protocol, ransom publishing
model, copyright buy-out, compensation and patronage as
synonyms/subcategories of it.

---

Thanks for all the help,

Chris

*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 11 July 2013 06:49, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130711/2b8fd136/attachment.html>