libreplanet-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] ethical edtech edit-a-thon


From: Michael McMahon
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] ethical edtech edit-a-thon
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 10:22:41 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/52.9.1

Hi!

Could the wiki be licensed under CC BY-SA?

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Best,
Michael McMahon | Web Developer, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: 4337 2794 C8AD D5CA 8FCF  FA6C D037 59DA B600 E3C0
https://fsf.org | https://gnu.org

On 03/13/2019 10:05 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> On 2019-03-12 22:40, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> There's a bunch of confusion going on here.
>>
>> Free/libre includes all freely licensed works, even when GPL
>> incompatible.
>>
>> GNU itself hosts a list of specifically FREE/LIBRE licenses that are
>> accepted as such despite the downside of being GPL-incompatible.
>>
>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>>
>>
>> As far as trying to talk about these topics in general, I suggest the
>> use of FLO (Free/Libre/Open), as discussed at
>> https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/free-libre-open
>>
>> This isn't about a *wider* set as free/libre covers the set just fine.
>> The issue is just about acknowledging the existence of "open" both for
>> its own values and simply to not confuse people who think that "open
>> source" refers to a really different set of software (it does not, the
>> sets are NEAR unity with only obscure edge-case distinctions).
>>
>> On 2019-03-12 8:45 p.m., Nathan Schneider wrote:
>>> Ugh, sorry. My kid's sickness is creeping through my brain! I
>>> mis-wrote.
>>>
>>> Free/libre = GPL compatible
>>> Open source = GPL compatible + GPL incompatible open codebases
>>>
>>> And I think the fact that some software in there that is GPL compatible
>>> is not categorized as free/libre is simply a mistake in an early
>>> project.
>>>
>>> It may be in the end that dropping "open source" altogether is the
>>> right
>>> thing to do. We're starting with a wide net, with the goal of refining
>>> the process as we go.
>>>
>>> I am aware about the horrible hyperlinks. I have complained about that.
>>> But it is inescapable on my university's email system.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your suggestions!
>>>
>>> Nathan
>>>
>>> On 3/12/19 4:52 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>>>> Nathan Schneider <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM Dmitry Alexandrov
>>>>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>> Erin Glass <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm writing to let you know about the 'Ethical Ed Tech
>>>>>>> https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Meta:Welcome_to_Ethical_EdTech wiki
>>>>>> ...the first thing that strikes in the eye ... is a tag cloud
>>>>>> with distinct categories for ‘free/libre’ [1] and ‘open source’
>>>>>> software [2].  What definitions of that terms do you use, so this
>>>>>> is required?  ...fine yet vague categorizations tend to be faulty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, the wiki in question already features ‘open source’ yet
>>>>>> _not_ ‘free/libre’ Atom, CommentPress, Pandoc, Omeka, GitLab,
>>>>>> Hypothesis and LibreOffice, with no examples of the opposite.
>>>>> I would think of "open source" as everything that's GPL compatible
>>>>> plus non-free licenses.
>>>> Er?  Sorry, it seems that my English is not good enough to grasp it.
>>>>
>>>> ‘Open source’ programs are programs that are under GNU
>>>> GPL-compatible terms and (union) programs that are nonfree?  That
>>>> is LaTeX is not ‘open source’, while Microsoft Word is?  No, that’s
>>>> nonsensical.  Next.
>>>>
>>>> ‘Open source’ programs are programs that are at the same time
>>>> GPL-compatible and nonfree?  No, that’s empty set.
>>>>
>>>> ‘Open source’ programs are programs that available either (as an
>>>> option) under terms of a GPL-compatible free licence or some
>>>> nonfree licence?  These are free programs.  And again, why
>>>> GPL-incompatible ones are excluded?  No, still a fishy guess.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, I’m given up. :-)
>>>>
>>>> In any way, that would be the most peculiar definition of ‘open
>>>> source’ among _four_ others, I am aware about.  I couldn’t care
>>>> less about purity of this confusing term, but is it really worth to
>>>> invent another one?
>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the distinction is tricky, and I don't love it. In
>>>>> fact, originally we were planning to call this "open tech for open
>>>>> ed" or something, and I happened to be in an email exchange at the
>>>>> time with Richard Stallman, who objected on the "open" language,
>>>>> and so I set up the open vs. free/libre distinction to avoid
>>>>> antagonizing anyone further.
>>>> To set a distinction, perhaps, is not the sure way to _avoid_
>>>> antagonizing.  Rather, the other way round. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> I would love any suggestions about how to handle this matter better!
>>>> In the same way as nearly everyone do, of course.  Do not install a
>>>> separate category of ‘open source’ software in any sense of that
>>>> phrase.  Due to its overwhelming usage as a metonymy for ‘free’ in
>>>> the anglophonic sphere, that category will became the only one
>>>> really used, while ‘free / libre’ will remain neglected, thus
>>>> provoking confusions about how LibreOffice, Pandoc, etc are not
>>>> free.  It already went that way.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
>>> address@hidden
>>> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
>
> Thanks for the links and the clarification.
>
>
> I follow what you're saying about open/open source and not demonizing
> it, but would you mind clarifying the part about open source not
> really being different? What is it in near unity with?
>
>> This isn't about a *wider* set as free/libre covers the set just fine.
>> The issue is just about acknowledging the existence of "open" both for
>> its own values and simply to not confuse people who think that "open
>> source" refers to a really different set of software (it does not, the
>> sets are NEAR unity with only obscure edge-case distinctions).
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]