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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM Dmitry Alexandrov <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Erin Glass <[email protected]> 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. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
