On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Chris Sakkas <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey folks, > > I've updated: http://okfnpad.org/UEVd4jV2cB > > Including a one-page summary, more discussion about what the free in free > software/culture means and changes to the definition of intellectual > property and 'fund and release'. > > *Samuel: *I tend to agree. I think libre or FLO (or, perhaps, FLOW) are > ideal terms. > I like FLO. In "Open Access" the terms "Open" and "Libre" have been so badly treated that they are simply political and marketing symbols. "Libre" is "gratis open access plus some additional usage rights" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access). This means that CC-NC-ND can be described as "Libre" - perhaps the "additional right" is the right to put it in a repository. The only term which is meaningfully implementable is the Budapest declaration of Open Access (BOAI). Both the proponents of non-BOAI OA and many publishers therefore label material as "Open Access" when the users and authors have very few - almost zero - rights and these are never formalised. I think that any English word will be devalued in this area and I would strongly support the use of FLO rather than Libre. It's clear it has a precise, immutable, definition. > > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
