Re: [libreplanet-discuss] ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

Nathan Schneider <nathan.schneider@Colorado.EDU> wrote:
> My kid's sickness is creeping through my brain! I mis-wrote.

My wishes for a speedy recovery.

>>>> ...distinct categories for ‘free/libre’ [1] and ‘open source’ software 
>>>> [2].  What definitions of that terms do you use, so this is required?
>…>
> Free/libre = GPL compatible

That’s by no means a common usage.  If we exclude misinterpretations, leaving 
only deliberate decisions, I’d say it would remain unique.

> Open source = GPL compatible + GPL incompatible open codebases
. Open source = any open codebases
. Open source = any open source code collections
. Open source = any any open source code collections code collections
. <...>
. Segmentation fault

:-)

> On 3/12/19 4:52 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>> Nathan Schneider <nathan.schneider@Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> 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.

Sure, it may be.  Yet, it might be worth stressing, that I did not suggest to 
do that right away, but only to stop inventing new meanings for 
well-established (that is ‘free (libre) [software]’) and not so 
well-established (that is ‘open source [software]’) terms.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature