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

Sat Jul 13 21:08:35 UTC 2013

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 10/07/13 16:33, heath rezabek wrote:
>> Actually, given the Open Definition, I'd disagree.  Open is a term that
>> really can be defined, and as such I also think it's a strong candidate
>> for universal usage.
>>
>> http://opendefinition.org/
>
> The OKD is a (superior) adaptation of the OSD which is an adaptation of the
> DFSG which is a Free Software definition...

Superior to the OSD or some other adaptation of the OSD that I don't know about?

If the former, I'm curious which changes make it superior in your estimation.

The OD (the 'K' has been dropped, FWIW) is the OSD, with the following changes:

* (2) Source Code at no more than reasonable reproduction cost
replaced with (1) Access to work no more than reproduction cost and
(4) Absence of technological restriction (source probably stricter
than no technical restrictions; FWIW
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition includes both)

* (4) Integrity split into (5) Attribution and (6) Integrity, allowing
the non-software equivalent of badgeware (is that a good thing!?) and
not specifying whether requiring patch distribution of modifications
is OK

* (10) Technological neutrality dropped

And software->knowledge and other small word and number changes.

Eventually OD 1.2 will probably add another clause specifying that no
restrictions other than those mentioned are permissible (since some
government licenses have had restrictions that are not allowed by
implication, but thought to be helpful to be explicit).

> "Open" was historically chosen as a nice, fuzzy, politically uncommitted
> buzzword. I respect the OSI and OKF's choice of it, and there certainly are
> contexts where "openness" is a meaningful virtue, but there are also
> contexts where it's a way of avoiding saying "freedom". This is one of them.

More troubling than word choice is the tendency to use word choice to
avoid making substantive and convincing arguments that hold up to
critique that one's desired ordering is good, feasible, important,
etc.

Mike