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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> 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 > [email protected] > @starshipcongrss > <https://twitter.com/StarshipCongrss>starshipcongress.com > >
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
