It seems to me there are a number of things going on here.
1. Apparently there are debates or arguments going on within the
free/open/libre/gratis community, with lots of groups advocating for their own
term. So for example, Heath wrote "so much scarred earth lays between Open and
Free". It would be nice if all these groups can come to agreement, but, as a
newcomer, I'd ask, how likely is this? (I'm not asking in a disparaging manner,
it's something I don't know about.)
2. The second thing is how to get some term the public can understand.
Personally, I'd vote for "open". When the general public (including me) sees
free, they likely think, free to use, no charge. Open seems much more likely to
imply more than that, that some source code may be involved, or some coding of
some sort. I think it's too long a campaign to get "libre" as the standard.
3. The third thing is the "so what" factor. I'm presuming that most people,
outside of the free/open/libre community, won't really be interested in whether
something is "free" or "open" or "libre" or "gratis" or ... well, you get the
idea. Mostly they will want to know, does it cost anything for them to use. If
not, that's all they want to know. Perhaps it would be nice to educate the
public a little, just that something is 'free to use, no charge' vs 'free to
use, modify, share'. But I don't know whether more than that would be useful
for the public.
Check the top of this page for my small contribution to public education.
http://gsociology.icaap.org/methods/soft.html
Gene
_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
