Re: [libreplanet-discuss] 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!