[wos] Re: panel clusters

[Volker Grassmuck]

Hi Erik,

thanks for your ideas on this. I wouldn't credit the FSF alone with 
being careful about words we use. It's also the norm in science, and 
I do think that words pre-format the way we think. Defining words, 
making explicit what we want them to mean, as you and others have 
done with "free content" is certainly the way to go. Alas it's not 
always pratical to attach the URL with its definition as a footnote 
to every big word we use. So we have to try and pick the best 
possible word and hope that its intended sematic field carries across 
to most readers. 

So my suggestion is to change the thematic category into "Authorship 
& Culture", and leave "Quality Management in Free Content" as is, 
because the panel will not address quality in free software, which we 
had a panel on at wos3:
http://wizards-of-os.org/index.php?id=556

Fernanda pointed out the problem with "Brazil, the Open Source 
Nation." Since it was never intended to imply Raymond pragmatism but 
rather refers to a broad movement I'd like to follow your suggestion 
and rename it "Brazil, the Free Culture Nation."

best
Volker

On 3 Jul 2006 at 15:07, Erik Moeller wrote:

> Am Montag, den 03.07.2006, 13:01 +0200 schrieb Volker Grassmuck:
> > because content = "culture" implies that software, tools, rules, 
> > economy are not culture. A replacement for "content" would be very 
> > welcome. We talked about this before. Maybe in the end we have to 
> > decide which is the least bad compromise, content or culture.
> 
> I don't seem to have the previous message in this thread, but I'd like
> to jump in quickly. I believe that the reasoning about terminology has
> so far been dominated by the FSF-style thinking that certain words are
> "good" and other words are "bad." For instance, RMS argues that
> "content" is a "word to avoid" because it suggests that works are "an
> interchangeable commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make
> money" [1].
> 
> I disagree with that reasoning. Our real problem, I believe, is not one
> of "free" vs. "open", or "content" vs. "culture". Our real problem is
> one of definitions, and using the right terms in the right context.
> 
> Lessig defines "Free Culture" as a broad and inclusive movement -- not
> surprisingly, since he wants all of Creative Commons to be covered by
> it. At http://freedomdefined.org/ , we have tried to define "Free
> Content" in similar ways to "Free Software", requiring, for instance,
> the right to use the content commercially.
> 
> Similarly, while "Open Source" has a very solid and limited definition,
> "Open Access" is a very vague term that seems to apply even to "free
> download" content under traditional licensing.
> 
> If, in the context of WOS, you want to appeal to a broad movement as
> defined by Lessig, by all means use the term "Free Culture". If you want
> to refer specifically to content under very permissive licenses, terms
> like "Free Software" or "Free Content" are preferable.
> 
> Erik
> 
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
> 


-- 
   WOS 4. Information Freedom Rules
      14-16 Sept. 2006, Berlin, http://wizards-of-os.org
   iRights           http://iRights.info
   copy = right    http://privatkopie.net
   home:   http://waste.informatik.hu-berlin.de/Grassmuck