Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Prof Andrew A. Adams]

Note that outside the tech world, "Open Source" has at least one other common 
meaning. In the intelligence world it is commonly available information 
(newsreports, published web sites, "readable by everyone" Facebook posts etc. 
That's to distinguish it from closed sources such as direct human 
intelligence (HUMINT), or signals interception (SIGINT) such as the NSA's 
cracking into FB, Google, et al.

I commonly use the term FLOSS (Free, Libre, Open Source Software) to try and 
capture the broad set with the most precise edges and minimal ambiguity.

-- 
Dr Andrew A Adams                      aaa@meiji.ac.jp
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/



_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Erin Glass]

Hi all,

I'm writing to let you know about the 'Ethical Ed Tech
<https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Meta:Welcome_to_Ethical_EdTech>' wiki and
edit-a-thon on April 3 that may be of interest to the free software
community.

Nathan Schneider (CU Boulder) and I recently started the wiki with the aim
of providing information about using ethical forms of software in the
classroom and raising awareness about edtech ethics in general. So far,
we've seeded the wiki with some basic information, but we're hoping this
can become a broader community project.

Folks can contribute to the wiki at any point, but we're especially excited
about building momentum for our *April 3 edit-a-thon*, which has three
physical locations so far and will also have a virtual component (TBD).
We've created a series of edit-a-thon tasks that we hope are inclusive of
both experts and non-experts on this topic.

We'd love if you wanted to get involved in any of the following ways:

-Host an edit-a-thon (and add location to this page
<https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Meta:Inaugural_Edit-a-Thon>)
-Participate in the edit-a-thon (and RSVP by adding your name to this page
<https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Meta:Inaugural_Edit-a-Thon>)
-Contribute information, tools, and articles to the list of tools or
research <https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Meta:Research>
-Promote the wiki and edit-a-thon to your communities (feel free to fwd
this email)
-Add ideas <https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Meta:Contribute> about how to
make the wiki more useful for the edu community


Thanks for considering the project. Let me know if you have any questions
or suggestions.

All best,

Erin
-- 
Erin Rose Glass, Ph.D.
Digital Scholarship Librarian
UC San Diego Library *knit.ucsd.edu/digital/
<http://knit.ucsd.edu/digital/>*
www.erinroseglass.com | @erinroseglass
(858) 534-0827
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1299 bytes --]

Erin Glass <erglass@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 and
> edit-a-thon on April 3 that may be of interest to the free software
> community.

Looks interesting.  And the first thing that strikes in the eye right at the main page 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?  Afair, Wikipedia’s experience showed, that so 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.

The only commentary, that explain this oddity concerns Atom [3]:

> It is open source, under the MIT license, but is not free/libre.

But what is that supposed to mean?  Of course, a program, published in sources under any of ‘MIT licences’ (here — under the Expat licence), _is_ free in any sense of that word!

[1] https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Category:Free/libre
[2] https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Category:Open_source
[3] https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Atom

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Erin Glass]

Hi Dmitry,

You raise good questions. In this early stage of the project, we have been
focusing on showing educators alternatives to commercial (and invasive)
forms of academic technology more than establishing hard distinctions
between free/libre and open source software (which as you note, is more
complicated). However, I can now see how our tagging system has perhaps
emphasized the difference between free and open source without any helpful
description as to why.

My flight is about to take off but I will give this some more thought.

I’m copying my collaborator Nathan so he can weigh in as well.

Thanks for your input.

Erin

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:

> Erin Glass <erglass@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
> and
> > edit-a-thon on April 3 that may be of interest to the free software
> > community.
>
> Looks interesting.  And the first thing that strikes in the eye right at
> the main page 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?  Afair, Wikipedia’s experience showed, that so 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.
>
> The only commentary, that explain this oddity concerns Atom [3]:
>
> > It is open source, under the MIT license, but is not free/libre.
>
> But what is that supposed to mean?  Of course, a program, published in
> sources under any of ‘MIT licences’ (here — under the Expat licence), _is_
> free in any sense of that word!
>
> [1] https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Category:Free/libre
> [2] https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Category:Open_source
> [3] https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Atom
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE1yoTx9fONarixgNIydoJ3hnBsjAFAlyH9bAACgkQydoJ3hnB
> sjAV3Af/chuYTnqdU91++QFy9KDFNjgq+tlMjyx+WySAeT4hfXK9J/z6X9DGaz+T
> PStcj7eOOUN9DkPVFD1RZ0e/YuKP2wwvmJI6fAWPWd0MYQhuFU2eoIQIb9jlzSf2
> sDUDASxB6/hLZNFExQo37afKIYC7Ii45QrTJIbXH147tNpQTrOvBW5qnYU7k7lFr
> bJquTmWf4YJg1CDWpMbRn4btJOrf6T9Ex8gnYl9xzo2iCTqSQf6t/dRAx+0t1T5n
> Ui+6q3/jORFgvSgeeOf6ecEHSS1H5C9mMZikEqgfbE8b3VP3ZqCMK6/z1V1OUQPV
> F78YCE3Kr2lR2DPsy7VIT5m2BavxCw==
> =VZzu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
-- 
Erin Rose Glass, Ph.D.
Digital Scholarship Librarian
UC San Diego Library *knit.ucsd.edu/digital/
<http://knit.ucsd.edu/digital/>*
www.erinroseglass.com | @erinroseglass
(858) 534-0827
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Nathan Schneider]

Thanks Erin and Dmitry.

I take responsibility for this. For one thing, the Atom entry was
incorrect—MIT is free/libre according the criteria I was using (GPL
compatibility <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>). I would
think of "open source" as everything that's GPL compatible plus non-free
licenses.

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.

I would love any suggestions about how to handle this matter better!

Nathan

On 3/12/19 1:54 PM, Erin Glass wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> You raise good questions. In this early stage of the project, we have
> been focusing on showing educators alternatives to commercial (and
> invasive) forms of academic technology more than establishing hard
> distinctions between free/libre and open source software (which as you
> note, is more complicated). However, I can now see how our tagging
> system has perhaps emphasized the difference between free and open
> source without any helpful description as to why.
>
> My flight is about to take off but I will give this some more thought. 
>
> I’m copying my collaborator Nathan so he can weigh in as well.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Erin
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com
> <mailto:321942@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Erin Glass <erglass@ucsd.edu <mailto:erglass@ucsd.edu>> wrote:
>     > I'm writing to let you know about the 'Ethical Ed Tech
>     > <https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Meta:Welcome_to_Ethical_EdTech
>     <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1WzqT6P8VV-X7CsjsVREhlMwg8cFGxQVZdojF5gWzdyLN-Vxwa7HKGpl6P2dzh69WXPB7dQKtr55usOu2uvByZrpw0aucQs5uLIdzU8oA5MbhQe6cI0zoQ1uTQFEg84XqbKOYH9ffhotKsep-XB54RpZHLdwZu3UWuufOMCUBGi5tQZJRLfSeABFlLgGBTZZ8LtrOHWneP8wJ7qkKeb4Jps7PvNQ-o-vSG7yINi8VCrbOJX2_BBnmRryOywCNbt5FBkYSaxkZJky4wtntmLXPDxJTQfPT4pxLB8QHw4m-mXtYbcnpU2X6RiH54b8gk6MOLbXGGXo99TgPwkPUhStU4elcwNRapFoLOqL8UXlYoFkX8M4cFbwBRoW5gG5dqFiFb_UOCO9uxLA9BqXRcvtcc3izimyvWc-baZnuBGCeHtYYEuUol426sZ97eAGDqQU7hc6ILA3P1BuY1vTUT-r5ew/https%3A%2F%2Fethicaledtech.info%2Fwiki%2FMeta%3AWelcome_to_Ethical_EdTech>>'
>     wiki and
>     > edit-a-thon on April 3 that may be of interest to the free software
>     > community.
>
>     Looks interesting.  And the first thing that strikes in the eye
>     right at the main page 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?  Afair, Wikipedia’s
>     experience showed, that so 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.
>
>     The only commentary, that explain this oddity concerns Atom [3]:
>
>     > It is open source, under the MIT license, but is not free/libre.
>
>     But what is that supposed to mean?  Of course, a program,
>     published in sources under any of ‘MIT licences’ (here — under the
>     Expat licence), _is_ free in any sense of that word!
>
>     [1] https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Category:Free/libre
>     <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1u9Aj32rQFd1Zf8VB00aMvJqUL2xEGFpevY_wVPKoPEh1Q4eKiuDAHqQtJB7bMfZ8PzJ663O9fHCNErBunows93PuhLbbNfAeUvIngosRRO48JE6-TEmvy2KE5Gnjk5apU0L1zCQZUERCxJCLLGRnD1EGkW4JU8lV4aClXwF8XFDl0ToS7WXLAZUkCOyRnl_Yo6V2saO-JRa-w1Mh2P7HSvHS05G_8dAsMgH7mkQ_iF925cZZ1L6eqDq0DG2vuEOHcxKTFLqBL2wULmEjc7CGjx6swKM7bfyFKmAkoICu7N3XQ9BfbCclx7SOWcSE6DxpGIP00TRgef7SLinh4N94vuEkaNIqHig7uTAYAG5OkRGhL9Xe38rWuIgJkqk-sOQWzEvDPpyxtchFDvq7-LI0elL-9VvKfOTj5XReiDWI3e4ejbsiOVdK18ZlBkTrHv2oBMvPODBT-XVSXY38WPH_EQ/https%3A%2F%2Fethicaledtech.info%2Fwiki%2FCategory%3AFree%2Flibre>
>     [2] https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Category:Open_source
>     <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1vuJxCuLYWU96AMC0MKBFn6TayE8ONiFPeHX71w231OyPZrh8zM_N_CeD8p44aORev2dj1qcFlI8u2h9o4psF20vfYJatG6vas6KeXHK1rXOpI3edogSRLoolXVZfwA7qcZqXF3BTd3-8UJlGbhUYfHUTGFNFpOk9ApfvWqu3LnHKsYebpe4h6DAIvoIfTSWNbzyqi_l9Fum1XWZTVnO26Uskp3HYhSmyrPgIFRssWrm9ZTArGEY0kr4Ex5WQ3qaZ7H6nww3Lig3E3vh2W8XM3wyW9QbgpStWXQqc233s9l8SYHy7ohpl_SomsS2b5LCW0CbZXuW3PYCr4uWjUfDIMGJahe6W5H5TjoVYY1YUohsuTmasrA2Et5wPCkQYGp6-EboWdKnzIdegY3Aqc7032CFh-X8L8_dZe_nJWEtNy58v0lWlIFj6cxfmx4peXueBhK_5nN0BngQgtkHlqRsLXQ/https%3A%2F%2Fethicaledtech.info%2Fwiki%2FCategory%3AOpen_source>
>     [3] https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Atom
>     <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1EEvVUQiCCkBg61G4dc4oJLLStsAYibrUeWV9NM8_rVTbl6Jgy1QftPzClCSNAlz6laZ2jnaNOBbufAav4FR7hyDvPSyyJkaN13c-2hFZkUgl6ESEZSwKNVyoTT3aiOEq6aiRoMZw34WjboAM0YQTreuUiBU9ST1146GLryHL8HK_YJZLrCjw-uUZ-AtfjbYHZAa64YvGeWRPhd0b2pqGT4b8El24jdyAkTk2WSZBjvU-ZCBmX8W0Qc1512wybreXobAFi8ZYrFEBUC6IDQe35QdzEwwanWofUlwbyfQbnWCbpZvdDkRJ9-kIpcAfStAx0jYHJVB_CfVbqWmWupOfE70hvaBe8n15cTUSjC4sc3B24SnMzSzlWPapc1vsrq9GTCwPYl0-Xrw88mEI3DzWKhzhO3xXi_EsArzdk13QSSyRmfB3PHM0BkCFO3znfaTIwqR_BM1Ja2RLaY80abAR3g/https%3A%2F%2Fethicaledtech.info%2Fwiki%2FAtom>
>     -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>     iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE1yoTx9fONarixgNIydoJ3hnBsjAFAlyH9bAACgkQydoJ3hnB
>     sjAV3Af/chuYTnqdU91++QFy9KDFNjgq+tlMjyx+WySAeT4hfXK9J/z6X9DGaz+T
>     PStcj7eOOUN9DkPVFD1RZ0e/YuKP2wwvmJI6fAWPWd0MYQhuFU2eoIQIb9jlzSf2
>     sDUDASxB6/hLZNFExQo37afKIYC7Ii45QrTJIbXH147tNpQTrOvBW5qnYU7k7lFr
>     bJquTmWf4YJg1CDWpMbRn4btJOrf6T9Ex8gnYl9xzo2iCTqSQf6t/dRAx+0t1T5n
>     Ui+6q3/jORFgvSgeeOf6ecEHSS1H5C9mMZikEqgfbE8b3VP3ZqCMK6/z1V1OUQPV
>     F78YCE3Kr2lR2DPsy7VIT5m2BavxCw==
>     =VZzu
>     -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> -- 
> Erin Rose Glass, Ph.D.
> Digital Scholarship Librarian
> UC San Diego Library _knit.ucsd.edu/digital/
> <http://knit.ucsd.edu/digital/>_
> www.erinroseglass.com
> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1AoVAY4MJtUp8h0hBAR30WvWttNeVxyqHIlvnJSw2S6qXfYlYBrVFy3XhiUmMPKmnnr5vL1P9tUCb2tlmFA6u65TnI6A8w2hsdWFzjiVk-Mu5--d7Z1YUwlsEg9IylLZcuUYxVln322fpn3jC9amdn0SohdUQ7wT0QZ3g_NF8aMNxxNzd2N107PEav33sME--X3tPDJML5yvVaDroxNTkrfqX0yCtAKemAm6TxnheRNNVo9LaJ4evwGx0_Mtike-EmeP7H7vT68jtvZgf7BCe7I4g8rCIqjb_v1fNyNtHmK1WROH75NNmhfvBexxHvCGpG61PaPs3elxd3bgtE_aTx97-g7HGddvRtFo9dtFEjx9NmFVEHETDttjukxDoFgm4CWB9WwCK00KLAOjCi8fIAhASdaza3JYlEzkVraOBhm2f7Ag3iFzvi2Aw4dPqvaVP-EtHkxt4DXeVk_8pwIiAQw/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.erinroseglass.com>
> | @erinroseglass
> (858) 534-0827

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3476 bytes --]

Nathan Schneider <nathan.schneider@Colorado.EDU> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Erin Glass <erglass@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.

-- 
P. S. ¿Are you aware that your mail user/transport agent substitutes hyperlinks with this mess:

https://secure-web.cisco.com/1WzqT6P8VV-X7CsjsVREhlMwg8cFGxQVZdojF5gWzdyLN-Vxwa7HKGpl6P2dzh69WXPB7dQKtr55usOu2uvByZrpw0aucQs5uLIdzU8oA5MbhQe6cI0zoQ1uTQFEg84XqbKOYH9ffhotKsep-XB54RpZHLdwZu3UWuufOMCUBGi5tQZJRLfSeABFlLgGBTZZ8LtrOHWneP8wJ7qkKeb4Jps7PvNQ-o-vSG7yINi8VCrbOJX2_BBnmRryOywCNbt5FBkYSaxkZJky4wtntmLXPDxJTQfPT4pxLB8QHw4m-mXtYbcnpU2X6RiH54b8gk6MOLbXGGXo99TgPwkPUhStU4elcwNRapFoLOqL8UXlYoFkX8M4cFbwBRoW5gG5dqFiFb_UOCO9uxLA9BqXRcvtcc3izimyvWc-baZnuBGCeHtYYEuUol426sZ97eAGDqQU7hc6ILA3P1BuY1vTUT-r5ew/https%3A%2F%2Fethicaledtech.info%2Fwiki%2FMeta%3AWelcome_to_Ethical_EdTech

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Nathan Schneider]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3531 bytes --]

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.schneider@Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Erin Glass <erglass@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.
>



[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Aaron Wolf]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4722 bytes --]

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.schneider@Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Erin Glass <erglass@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
> 



[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[overthefalls]

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.schneider@Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM Dmitry Alexandrov 
>>>> <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Erin Glass <erglass@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

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Michael McMahon]

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, overthefalls@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.schneider@Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM Dmitry Alexandrov
>>>>> <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Erin Glass <erglass@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

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Aaron Wolf]

On 2019-03-13 7:05 a.m., overthefalls@opengroupware.ch wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 

The set of licenses that the OSI approves as "Open Source" and that
FSF/GNU approves as "Free software" is near unity. Hence, the set of all
software in the world that is "Open Source" is near unity with the set
of software that is "Free/libre".

The distinctions are almost not worth mentioning. The Watcom license
*requires* the publishing of changes, even changes for only private use
— and the OSI approved it while FSF did not. The FSF has approved a
couple licenses the OSI felt were just not legally clear enough but no
other objections… almost no software in existence uses any of the
disputed licenses.

Now, there's DEFINITELY philosophical distinctions. People often get
confused because of how strongly Richard Stallman pushes against "Open
Source", but if you look carefully, he always says "call it Free/libre,
don't call it Open Source" and similar. He cares what we call it, but he
doesn't want people to think that "it" is a different thing per se.

Besides political/philosophical issues, the practical matter is that
lots of people in the "Open Source" perspective make FLO software
specifically for use in *proprietary* end products while the
"free/libre" perspective opposes the creation of proprietary software.
But they still acknowledge that the "Open Source" *part* of the
proprietary development is unambiguously "free/libre" software.

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[overthefalls]

On 2019-03-13 08:30, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 2019-03-13 7:05 a.m., overthefalls@opengroupware.ch wrote:
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
> 
> The set of licenses that the OSI approves as "Open Source" and that
> FSF/GNU approves as "Free software" is near unity. Hence, the set of 
> all
> software in the world that is "Open Source" is near unity with the set
> of software that is "Free/libre".
> 
> The distinctions are almost not worth mentioning. The Watcom license
> *requires* the publishing of changes, even changes for only private use
> — and the OSI approved it while FSF did not. The FSF has approved a
> couple licenses the OSI felt were just not legally clear enough but no
> other objections… almost no software in existence uses any of the
> disputed licenses.
> 
> Now, there's DEFINITELY philosophical distinctions. People often get
> confused because of how strongly Richard Stallman pushes against "Open
> Source", but if you look carefully, he always says "call it Free/libre,
> don't call it Open Source" and similar. He cares what we call it, but 
> he
> doesn't want people to think that "it" is a different thing per se.
> 
> Besides political/philosophical issues, the practical matter is that
> lots of people in the "Open Source" perspective make FLO software
> specifically for use in *proprietary* end products while the
> "free/libre" perspective opposes the creation of proprietary software.
> But they still acknowledge that the "Open Source" *part* of the
> proprietary development is unambiguously "free/libre" software.

I guess for me it comes down to the fact that, while yes they are 'near' 
unity (open source and free/libre), the differences between them are 
great enough that a pioneer of free software and the pioneer of the 
copyleft paradigm is adament that the terms should not be conflated. As 
a proponent of both open source and free/libre (which is also open 
source admittedly, but with additional benefits). Of course it could be 
argued that open source has it's 'benefits'. But as Richard Stallman 
points out,(maybe one could argue it's just his point of view, but it's 
a pretty defensible point of view, imo) the benefits espoused by OS/OSI 
are mostly practical advantage and aren't a 'movement of freedom and 
justice' as he (and many others) view the free/libre movement. I'm new 
to the discussion/distinction myself so I looked into it a bit after 
reading the article you linked. Stallman's words on the subject are here 
if anyone isn't familiar.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

His perspective is summed up here I think.

> The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same 
> range of programs. However, they say deeply different things about 
> those programs, based on  > different values. The free software 
> movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a 
> movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open     > source 
> idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for 
> principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not 
> use that term.

So, while, they're NEAR unity as you say, the differences are actually 
great enough that he does not not agree with them.
Additionally, from the link you posted, it seems clear that the OSI has 
held quite different perspectives on open source than it does even now, 
and of course they could change course in the future. For those reasons, 
I agree that the distinction should be kept clear for everyone, 
especially new-comers like myself. I've extolled 'open source' but I 
will likely (after more research) shift to free/libre and speak more 
clearly when discussing OS vs Free/libre. I think all of the real 
enthusiasm in the space (the sustainable enthusiasm) is due to the 
additional philosophies espoused and championed by the free/libre 
movement.

Of course, the article you linked also talks about the advantages of the 
open model and community contributions. Those are also great causes to 
champion. I think the free/libre movement includes that though, and goes 
further, so again, the distinction is important.

Of course, the movement isn't about dictators or absolute authorities, 
so discussion is healthy. These are the things I've learned from the 
free/libre movement.

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Aaron Wolf]

On 2019-03-15 7:25 p.m., overthefalls@opengroupware.ch wrote:
> On 2019-03-13 08:30, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 2019-03-13 7:05 a.m., overthefalls@opengroupware.ch wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> The set of licenses that the OSI approves as "Open Source" and that
>> FSF/GNU approves as "Free software" is near unity. Hence, the set of all
>> software in the world that is "Open Source" is near unity with the set
>> of software that is "Free/libre".
>>
>> The distinctions are almost not worth mentioning. The Watcom license
>> *requires* the publishing of changes, even changes for only private use
>> — and the OSI approved it while FSF did not. The FSF has approved a
>> couple licenses the OSI felt were just not legally clear enough but no
>> other objections… almost no software in existence uses any of the
>> disputed licenses.
>>
>> Now, there's DEFINITELY philosophical distinctions. People often get
>> confused because of how strongly Richard Stallman pushes against "Open
>> Source", but if you look carefully, he always says "call it Free/libre,
>> don't call it Open Source" and similar. He cares what we call it, but he
>> doesn't want people to think that "it" is a different thing per se.
>>
>> Besides political/philosophical issues, the practical matter is that
>> lots of people in the "Open Source" perspective make FLO software
>> specifically for use in *proprietary* end products while the
>> "free/libre" perspective opposes the creation of proprietary software.
>> But they still acknowledge that the "Open Source" *part* of the
>> proprietary development is unambiguously "free/libre" software.
> 
> I guess for me it comes down to the fact that, while yes they are 'near'
> unity (open source and free/libre), the differences between them are
> great enough that a pioneer of free software and the pioneer of the
> copyleft paradigm is adament that the terms should not be conflated.

YES, RMS strongly opposes the conflation of "Open Source" and
"Free/Libre" as *terms* but he does not emphasize the idea that we
shouldn't conflate the *software*.


> As a proponent of both open source and free/libre (which is also open
> source admittedly, but with additional benefits). Of course it could be
> argued that open source has it's 'benefits'. But as Richard Stallman
> points out,(maybe one could argue it's just his point of view, but it's
> a pretty defensible point of view, imo) the benefits espoused by OS/OSI
> are mostly practical advantage and aren't a 'movement of freedom and
> justice' as he (and many others) view the free/libre movement. I'm new
> to the discussion/distinction myself so I looked into it a bit after
> reading the article you linked. Stallman's words on the subject are here
> if anyone isn't familiar.
> 
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
> 

To be clear, the article I linked has that in a footnote, it's directly
referenced.

> His perspective is summed up here I think.
> 
>> The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same
>> range of programs. However, they say deeply different things about
>> those programs, based on  > different values. The free software
>> movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a
>> movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open     > source
>> idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for
>> principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not
>> use that term.
> 
> So, while, they're NEAR unity as you say, the differences are actually
> great enough that he does not not agree with them.

For perspective, RMS is picky about lots of words (and I'm not saying
he's wrong necessarily, though I don't agree with everything precisely).
He says we should say "Digital Restrictions Management" rather than
"Digital Rights Management" for example. I agree with him 100% there.
But those are two terms for *exactly* the same thing.

It's like saying whether we say "illegal immigrants" versus
"undocumented immigrants" — the political ramifications are significant,
the meaning matters, but we're 99% of the time talking about the same
immigrants. Maybe it *matters* not to conflate the terms, but it would
be wrong to insist that they refer to substantially different people.

> Additionally, from the link you posted, it seems clear that the OSI has
> held quite different perspectives on open source than it does even now,
> and of course they could change course in the future. For those reasons,
> I agree that the distinction should be kept clear for everyone,
> especially new-comers like myself. I've extolled 'open source' but I
> will likely (after more research) shift to free/libre and speak more
> clearly when discussing OS vs Free/libre. I think all of the real
> enthusiasm in the space (the sustainable enthusiasm) is due to the
> additional philosophies espoused and championed by the free/libre movement.
> 

I'm with you here. I still today see lots of people using "Open Source"
with NO care for the free/libre values. I often have conversations where
I bring up this semantic debate as part of emphasizing that *I* feel the
free/libre issues matter. If people say "free/libre", I know they
understand those values at least somewhat. If they just say "free" I'm
less sure (because of the ambiguity of the term), and if they just say
"open source" I have no idea. Likewise, if they say "FLOSS" I'm not sure
because at some point any term kinda loses its edge when it gets used
enough. The "President" of the U.S. was named that to emphasize nothing
more than *presiding* and intended to be not much honor and nothing like
the power of a King. But because it has power, the term has come to have
a feeling of extreme power and importance.

> Of course, the article you linked also talks about the advantages of the
> open model and community contributions. Those are also great causes to
> champion. I think the free/libre movement includes that though, and goes
> further, so again, the distinction is important.
> 

The free/libre movement *can* emphasize openness, but there are lots of
cases where free/libre software is developed without much transparency
and just sort of thrown-over-the-wall with very little room for
collaboration. But it's NOT that free/libre promotes that, it's just
that "open" promotes the collaboration more explicitly.

> Of course, the movement isn't about dictators or absolute authorities,
> so discussion is healthy. These are the things I've learned from the
> free/libre movement.

From my view, if we could erase all the uses of "open" and "open source"
and make everyone use only free/libre, that would be fine. But we can't.
And I see all sorts of downsides (including the errors in this thread
that I initially replied to) when people see "open source" and try to
imagine how it is something *entirely* different.

So, "free/libre" actually refers to all licenses that allow the four
freedoms. Nathan here had the error of thinking "free/libre" meant only
GPL-compatible. But a common *wrong* view out there is that "free/libre"
refers *only* to GPL-style copyleft and that even GPL-compatible
permissive licenses don't count. That sort of confusion comes up because
people try to make sense of WHY these different terms are used.

So, whatever term you prefer, it's important that people understand that
it's nearly-all the same software, just like the analogies I mentioned
above about political terms in other cases.

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[bill-auger]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 20:12:24 -0700 Aaron wrote:
> I'm with you here. I still today see lots of people using "Open
> Source" with NO care for the free/libre values. I often have
> conversations where

i think the real essence of these confusions is that people use the
terms "open-source" and "free-software" to refer to something that
neither of those terms convey very well; but most of the time they are
referring to exactly the same thing and indicating mostly the same
values of it, but from a different perspective

the biggest problem is that the terms "open-source" and "free-software"
are both woefully inadequate for actually conveying their respective
concepts, as they are generally intended - unlike "free" as in
"freedom", the literal words "open" and "source" do not even attempt to
describe the concept that is actually intended by most people who use it

strictly speaking, all that the words "open" and "source" imply, is
that you can read the code, because it is "not hidden" - much like any
repo on github that does not have a license - you can read the files,
but you can not copy them, or modify them, or redistribute them, or make
use them in any way - by that definition, no one would be cheer-leading
the merits of open-source, unless that definition were somehow
profitable to them as a marketing buzz-word - so, "open-source" is a
fairly vacuous term in of itself, and it's only true merits are
precisely the same as what the FSF calls more clearly: "software
freedom"; and only in the specific cases where it actually does provide
that (when the "open" source code is accompanied by a free license)

from my experience, the properties of "open-source" that most people
who actually use the term actually like about it, are actually the four
freedoms - noted above, software can be open-source without providing
any such freedoms; so it is an unfortunately misleading label to give
software that does provide user freedom - it is extremely unlikely
however, that any software that does not provide the four freedoms will
be referred to in a normal conversation by term "open-source" - most
people who use that term are almost always referring to software that
provides all four freedoms, sans the ethical overtones - thats not
because they do not appreciate "software freedom" - they just dont
emphasize ethics as the primary concern

i think the main reason why some prefer to use "open-source", is
because they take "open" in the sense of "open-minded"; so it makes
them appear more hip and modern, rather than merely altruistic or
generous, as "freedom" more aptly implies - the problem with that
interpretation, of course, is that it could only be meaningfully applied
to the people on the dev team, not to the source code; which is only
inert information after-all - the source code is "open" merely in the
sense of "disclosed", like the ingredients list on a can of soup; which
are not adequate for making your own soup - that is the point missing
in the term "open-source"; but again i see most people using it, not in
that sense at all, but as a synonym for everything "software freedom"
implies, sans the ethical imperative

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1285 bytes --]

Aaron Wolf <wolftune@riseup.net> wrote:
> There's a bunch of confusion going on here. <…>
>
> 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

Argh!  That’s a perfect idea to get some more bunches of confusion, if you ask me.

When Raymond & Co. decided to coin a new word to hijack the essence of free software to promote their own idea, they cared and succeed not to repeat Dr. Stallman’s mistake of using an ambiguous word, so they didn’t not call it ‘open’, which would be even more overloaded than ‘free’ is¹, but ‘open _source_’.

Another reason, more apparent then than today, was in the fact, that ‘open software’ have been already _taken_ to mean something entirely different: (mostly nonfree) software based on open standards (keywords: SUS, CDE, Motif).

_
¹ Well, I by no means an expert in English, but any dictionary in my possession says so.  Moreover, after verbatim translation to another language ‘free software’ tends to rid itself from ambiguity, while ‘open’ does not — at best.  At worst, it acquires further meanings, like that of ‘opened programs’ (= ‘running programs’), for instance.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Aaron Wolf]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2223 bytes --]

On 2019-03-13 11:39 a.m., Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> Aaron Wolf <wolftune@riseup.net> wrote:
>> There's a bunch of confusion going on here. <…>
>>
>> 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
> 
> Argh!  That’s a perfect idea to get some more bunches of confusion, if you ask me.
> 
> When Raymond & Co. decided to coin a new word to hijack the essence of free software to promote their own idea, they cared and succeed not to repeat Dr. Stallman’s mistake of using an ambiguous word, so they didn’t not call it ‘open’, which would be even more overloaded than ‘free’ is¹, but ‘open _source_’.
>

I'm not suggesting "open" on its own be accepted as anything precise,
it's far too overused and abused. "Open Source" is a recognized term.
But FLO as a full term is not overloaded but is specifically NOT an
overused overloaded term. So, it is exclusively used to talk about
free/libre/open-source etc.

"Open" isn't used only for "Open Source" in this context though as there
are "Open Access" journals and "Open" as in https://okfn.org/ "Open
Knowledge"

"Open" on its own is nearly useless. But FLO is more specific, it refers
to meeting all the core freedoms while having some tie-in to the
mostly-synonymous cases of "Open" as in "Open Source". It's not Free
*or* Libre *or* Open, but Free AND Libre AND Open (not to suggest that
those terms mean different things, but something that clearly meets
*all* of them is clearly FLO).


> Another reason, more apparent then than today, was in the fact, that ‘open software’ have been already _taken_ to mean something entirely different: (mostly nonfree) software based on open standards (keywords: SUS, CDE, Motif).
> 
> _
> ¹ Well, I by no means an expert in English, but any dictionary in my possession says so.  Moreover, after verbatim translation to another language ‘free software’ tends to rid itself from ambiguity, while ‘open’ does not — at best.  At worst, it acquires further meanings, like that of ‘opened programs’ (= ‘running programs’), for instance.
> 



[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1835 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[D. Joe]

Erin Glass <erglass@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

Erin, Nathan:

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of the list.

I appreciated seeing Erin's presentation with Scott Dexter and Evan Misshula at LibrePlanet a few years ago:

https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/getting-the-academy-to-support-free-software-and-open-science/

Any chance either of you will be there this year?

-- 
D. Joe




_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Quiliro Ordonez]

Dear Erin and Nathan.

I hope the following makes things clearer

Libre software, free software and open source are practically the same
thing. I usually ask this type of software to be called libre to avoid
the ambiguity between gratuity and freedom. Libre is unmistakably the
best term to communicate (if you agree that freedom is the most
important issue).

The other term is used usually by people that do not care if their users
are free or not.

Hope this info is useful.

Happy hackin'
Quiliro

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Pen-Yuan Hsing]

Hi all,

Much has already been said, so I'd just like to suggest a few quick 
things for reference:

(1) There is a very clear and informative graphic delineating the 
differences between what is free (as in freedom, not free of charge) 
software, open source software, and copylefted software (such as those 
with a GPL license) [1][2]. As you can see, all GPL software is copyleft 
software; all copyleft software is free software; and all free software 
is open source. The thing is that there is a very small amount of open 
source software that might not be free (and hence, proprietary); and 
some free software is not copyleft.

(2) Outside of software, I think it is also crucial to consider 
everything else (e.g., teaching material like artwork, multimedia, text, 
etc.). Specifically, there should be discussion around free culture and 
the use of the Creative Commons licenses. This is a whole other big (but 
important) topic so I won't go into details in this message. But I've 
been certified in Creative Commons licensing, so let me know if you'd 
like more information.

(3) I would urge that, at the very least, this ethical edtech wiki (very 
exciting!) should not try to redefine existing terms such as free 
software or open source software. Doing so would just add to the confusion!

Hope this is useful...

[1]: 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Categories_of_free_and_nonfree_software.svg
[2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

On 12/03/2019 20:39, Nathan Schneider wrote:
> Thanks Erin and Dmitry.
> 
> I take responsibility for this. For one thing, the Atom entry was
> incorrect—MIT is free/libre according the criteria I was using (GPL
> compatibility <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>). I would
> think of "open source" as everything that's GPL compatible plus non-free
> licenses.
> 
> 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.
> 
> I would love any suggestions about how to handle this matter better!
> 
> Nathan
> 
> On 3/12/19 1:54 PM, Erin Glass wrote:
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> You raise good questions. In this early stage of the project, we have
>> been focusing on showing educators alternatives to commercial (and
>> invasive) forms of academic technology more than establishing hard
>> distinctions between free/libre and open source software (which as you
>> note, is more complicated). However, I can now see how our tagging
>> system has perhaps emphasized the difference between free and open
>> source without any helpful description as to why.
>>
>> My flight is about to take off but I will give this some more thought.
>>
>> I’m copying my collaborator Nathan so he can weigh in as well.
>>
>> Thanks for your input.
>>
>> Erin
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com
>> <mailto:321942@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      Erin Glass <erglass@ucsd.edu <mailto:erglass@ucsd.edu>> wrote:
>>      > I'm writing to let you know about the 'Ethical Ed Tech
>>      wiki and
>>      > edit-a-thon on April 3 that may be of interest to the free software
>>      > community.
>>
>>      Looks interesting.  And the first thing that strikes in the eye
>>      right at the main page 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?  Afair, Wikipedia’s
>>      experience showed, that so 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.
>>
>>      The only commentary, that explain this oddity concerns Atom [3]:
>>
>>      > It is open source, under the MIT license, but is not free/libre.
>>
>>      But what is that supposed to mean?  Of course, a program,
>>      published in sources under any of ‘MIT licences’ (here — under the
>>      Expat licence), _is_ free in any sense of that word!

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Ineiev]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 757 bytes --]

On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 05:32:35PM +0000, Pen-Yuan Hsing wrote:
> 
> (2) Outside of software, I think it is also crucial to consider
> everything else (e.g., teaching material like artwork, multimedia,
> text, etc.). Specifically, there should be discussion around free
> culture and the use of the Creative Commons licenses. This is a
> whole other big (but important) topic so I won't go into details in
> this message. But I've been certified in Creative Commons licensing,
> so let me know if you'd like more information.

Please don't say just "Creative Commons licenses". historically, CC
provided (and still provides) an extremely wide range of different
licenses. some of them are suitable for works of practical usage,
other are not.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Pen-Yuan Hsing]

On 18/03/2019 08:30, Ineiev wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 05:32:35PM +0000, Pen-Yuan Hsing wrote:
>> (2) Outside of software, I think it is also crucial to consider
>> everything else (e.g., teaching material like artwork, multimedia,
>> text, etc.). Specifically, there should be discussion around free
>> culture and the use of the Creative Commons licenses. This is a
>> whole other big (but important) topic so I won't go into details in
>> this message. But I've been certified in Creative Commons licensing,
>> so let me know if you'd like more information.
> 
> Please don't say just "Creative Commons licenses". historically, CC
> provided (and still provides) an extremely wide range of different
> licenses.

Thank you for pointing this out, but that is why I said "licenses" 
(plural, not singular) which acknowledges that there are many, not just 
one, Creative Commons licenses. I also stated that this is a "whole 
other big topic" and didn't go into details unless there is a desire 
from the list to do so.

 > some of them are suitable for works of practical usage, other are not.

That's why I prefaced the point with "outside of software."

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 441 bytes --]

Em 16/03/2019 14:32, Pen-Yuan Hsing escreveu:
> (1) There is a very clear and informative graphic delineating the
> differences between what is free (as in freedom, not free of charge)
> software, open source software, and copylefted software (such as those
> with a GPL license) [1][2]. As you can see, all GPL software is copyleft

For completeness, the graph is also at [1].

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3376 bytes --]

Em 11/03/2019 20:18, Erin Glass escreveu:
> I'm writing to let you know about the 'Ethical Ed Tech
> <https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Meta:Welcome_to_Ethical_EdTech>' wiki and
> edit-a-thon on April 3 that may be of interest to the free software
> community.

Nice initiative indeed. Awesome! :D

As for the definitions of free/libre software and the other one, open
source, I think that the graph and explanation in [1] and [2] provide
insights on when those differ. The page in [2] does a wonderful job on
explaining in abstract what I'll say in this message, Besides, in the
field of *strategies* or *tactics* as to how to foster or advance
software freedom, the two groups also differ strongly, as can be seen in
various works such as [3][4][5][6]. Particularly, [6] explains why you
might see some people debating or advocating for stronger and auto
upgradable copyleft licenses such as AGPL-3.0-or-later for every kind of
work.

Technically, free/libre software activists and open source proponents
can work together in a given project, but they'll mostly disagree in
regards to which aspects to priorize in the balance between freedom of
the software for the very-end-user vs. other characteristic (e.g.: ease
of use, graphical friendliness, speed, adoption by other people).

In practice, Open Source Initiative's definition of open source seems to
enable works with digital handcuffs to fit in nicely to that category.
These handcuffs are ways that the copyright holders found to go beyond
the copyright law so as to take some already-given freedoms of the
software away from the very-end-user, measure also known for being
para-copyright[7]. Thus, the non-compliants can take a GPL-2.0-only work
and make derivated works that are distributed as cryptographically
signed execuables in smartphones/tablets and even in the engine control
units that decide how a car will develop/work while being driven, in
devices or vehicles that do signature checks to see if the cryptographic
keys and the binary/executable match.

This is such a problem that there are people in the free/libre software
movement advocating for the use of strong and auto upgradable copyleft
licenses (the AGPL-3.0-or-later comes to mind).

Trademarks (simply put: the registered logos and friendly names that
appear everywhere) are also accepted in the free/libre software movement
as long as the trademark *policies* don't take away the essential
freedoms of the software. Patents (which describe how to do something in
detail) are also accepted to some extent, with the advantage that the
GPL-3.0-or-later and AGPL-3.0-or-later provide better legal provisions
in favor of both the original copyright holders and the very-end-users[8].


[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html
[3] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
[4]
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html
[5] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html
[6] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
[7] https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech10.html#x13-790009.5
[8]
https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech10.html#x13-930009.14
[9] https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech10.html#x13-830009.9


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Aaron Wolf]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4120 bytes --]

Most of the clarifications from Adonay are correct, however the software
freedom movement does not support any patenting of software generally.
That some cases of software patents used defensively might exist in
practice is a complex issue. But in general, there is correct consensus
that software patents should never have been legally allowed at all.

On 2019-03-30 1:04 p.m., Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> Em 11/03/2019 20:18, Erin Glass escreveu:
>> I'm writing to let you know about the 'Ethical Ed Tech
>> <https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Meta:Welcome_to_Ethical_EdTech>' wiki and
>> edit-a-thon on April 3 that may be of interest to the free software
>> community.
> 
> Nice initiative indeed. Awesome! :D
> 
> As for the definitions of free/libre software and the other one, open
> source, I think that the graph and explanation in [1] and [2] provide
> insights on when those differ. The page in [2] does a wonderful job on
> explaining in abstract what I'll say in this message, Besides, in the
> field of *strategies* or *tactics* as to how to foster or advance
> software freedom, the two groups also differ strongly, as can be seen in
> various works such as [3][4][5][6]. Particularly, [6] explains why you
> might see some people debating or advocating for stronger and auto
> upgradable copyleft licenses such as AGPL-3.0-or-later for every kind of
> work.
> 
> Technically, free/libre software activists and open source proponents
> can work together in a given project, but they'll mostly disagree in
> regards to which aspects to priorize in the balance between freedom of
> the software for the very-end-user vs. other characteristic (e.g.: ease
> of use, graphical friendliness, speed, adoption by other people).
> 
> In practice, Open Source Initiative's definition of open source seems to
> enable works with digital handcuffs to fit in nicely to that category.
> These handcuffs are ways that the copyright holders found to go beyond
> the copyright law so as to take some already-given freedoms of the
> software away from the very-end-user, measure also known for being
> para-copyright[7]. Thus, the non-compliants can take a GPL-2.0-only work
> and make derivated works that are distributed as cryptographically
> signed execuables in smartphones/tablets and even in the engine control
> units that decide how a car will develop/work while being driven, in
> devices or vehicles that do signature checks to see if the cryptographic
> keys and the binary/executable match.
> 
> This is such a problem that there are people in the free/libre software
> movement advocating for the use of strong and auto upgradable copyleft
> licenses (the AGPL-3.0-or-later comes to mind).
> 
> Trademarks (simply put: the registered logos and friendly names that
> appear everywhere) are also accepted in the free/libre software movement
> as long as the trademark *policies* don't take away the essential
> freedoms of the software. Patents (which describe how to do something in
> detail) are also accepted to some extent, with the advantage that the
> GPL-3.0-or-later and AGPL-3.0-or-later provide better legal provisions
> in favor of both the original copyright holders and the very-end-users[8].
> 
> 
> [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
> [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html
> [3] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
> [4]
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html
> [5] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html
> [6] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
> [7] https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech10.html#x13-790009.5
> [8]
> https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech10.html#x13-930009.14
> [9] https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech10.html#x13-830009.9
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
> 



[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: ethical edtech edit-a-thon

[Leah Rowe]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4561 bytes --]

i like this iniative too. as someone who regularly has to help people in
education (I sell a lot of freedom laptops to people in education: both
students and teachers) I get questions about education software a lot.

kudos to you for setting up this directory.

On 30/03/2019 20:04, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> Em 11/03/2019 20:18, Erin Glass escreveu:
>> I'm writing to let you know about the 'Ethical Ed Tech
>> <https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Meta:Welcome_to_Ethical_EdTech>' wiki and
>> edit-a-thon on April 3 that may be of interest to the free software
>> community.
> 
> Nice initiative indeed. Awesome! :D
> 
> As for the definitions of free/libre software and the other one, open
> source, I think that the graph and explanation in [1] and [2] provide
> insights on when those differ. The page in [2] does a wonderful job on
> explaining in abstract what I'll say in this message, Besides, in the
> field of *strategies* or *tactics* as to how to foster or advance
> software freedom, the two groups also differ strongly, as can be seen in
> various works such as [3][4][5][6]. Particularly, [6] explains why you
> might see some people debating or advocating for stronger and auto
> upgradable copyleft licenses such as AGPL-3.0-or-later for every kind of
> work.
> 
> Technically, free/libre software activists and open source proponents
> can work together in a given project, but they'll mostly disagree in
> regards to which aspects to priorize in the balance between freedom of
> the software for the very-end-user vs. other characteristic (e.g.: ease
> of use, graphical friendliness, speed, adoption by other people).
> 
> In practice, Open Source Initiative's definition of open source seems to
> enable works with digital handcuffs to fit in nicely to that category.
> These handcuffs are ways that the copyright holders found to go beyond
> the copyright law so as to take some already-given freedoms of the
> software away from the very-end-user, measure also known for being
> para-copyright[7]. Thus, the non-compliants can take a GPL-2.0-only work
> and make derivated works that are distributed as cryptographically
> signed execuables in smartphones/tablets and even in the engine control
> units that decide how a car will develop/work while being driven, in
> devices or vehicles that do signature checks to see if the cryptographic
> keys and the binary/executable match.
> 
> This is such a problem that there are people in the free/libre software
> movement advocating for the use of strong and auto upgradable copyleft
> licenses (the AGPL-3.0-or-later comes to mind).
> 
> Trademarks (simply put: the registered logos and friendly names that
> appear everywhere) are also accepted in the free/libre software movement
> as long as the trademark *policies* don't take away the essential
> freedoms of the software. Patents (which describe how to do something in
> detail) are also accepted to some extent, with the advantage that the
> GPL-3.0-or-later and AGPL-3.0-or-later provide better legal provisions
> in favor of both the original copyright holders and the very-end-users[8].
> 
> 
> [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
> [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html
> [3] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
> [4]
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html
> [5] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html
> [6] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
> [7] https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech10.html#x13-790009.5
> [8]
> https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech10.html#x13-930009.14
> [9] https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech10.html#x13-830009.9
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
> 

-- 
Leah Rowe

Libreboot developer and project founder.

Use free software. Free as in freedom.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Use a free BIOS - https://libreboot.org/
Use a free operating system, GNU+Linux.

Support computer user freedom
https://sfconservancy.org/
https://fsf.org/ - https://gnu.org/

Minifree Ltd, trading as Ministry of Freedom | Registered in England,
No. 9361826 | VAT No. GB202190462
Registered Office: 19 Hilton Road, Canvey Island, Essex SS8 9QA, UK |
Web: https://minifree.org/


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss