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, overthefa...@opengroupware.ch 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 <nathan.schnei...@colorado.edu> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM Dmitry Alexandrov >>>>> <321...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Erin Glass <ergl...@ucsd.edu> 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 >>> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org >>> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> libreplanet-discuss mailing list >> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org >> 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 > libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss