Talk:Libre

(old) Move discussion in progress (2011)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Libre (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 21:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split history?

Perhaps the history of this page from 2005 to its beginning should be split to Libre (word) ? 65.93.14.50 (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[untitled 2012]

This new page for libre subsumes two previous pages, Libre Manifesto and Libre Society, both of which were stubs. The merging process is quite complicated and I hope that I've done everything correctly.

I think a page for libre is well-worth having. It's another term for free content and open knowledge, both of which are key to the encyclopedia and are growing in relevance in this century. --Sanglorian (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use the term "libre" in the libre article

Once the term "libre" has been explained in the opening paragraph, it may be used unambiguously in the rest of the article (i.e. "libre software" for "free software" etc.) where appropriate (it is not always appropriate, but there may be a few more places where "libre" could be used, compromise with "free/libre"). - Kim Tucker (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libre licences

The statement that "it is difficult to describe a single set of criteria that identifies all libre licences" is misleading. The relevant communities have clarified these criteria quite clearly and have lists of libre licences (see for example the the lists for libre software and libre cultural works). I suggest replacing the paragraph with something like:

Libre licences are licences pertaining to copyright in which the copyright owner has granted the freedoms accordingly (and equivalently) defined in the definitions of libre software, libre knowledge and libre cultural works. A libre resource (necessarily so-licensed or in the public domain) is free of any restrictions which might prevent users from being able to exercise these freedoms (such as DRM or patent-encumbrance). For example, of the still active Creative Commons licences, Creative Commons Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike and Zero are libre licences.

BUT FIRST (suggestion): change the heading "Forms of libre" to "Libre Licences" and begin it with the above modified paragraph (moved up). What follows is really about libre licences (i.e. Share-alike or Copyleft, etc.).

Then the heading "Libre licences and statements" may be removed, and promote "Statements and symbols" to a level 2 heading. - Kim Tucker (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libre protocols and libre file formats

In essence, these may be implemented with libre software - no technical or legal restrictions. See for example WikiEducator on libre file formats - Kim Tucker (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kim! --Sanglorian (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLOSS

In the section on Free, libre and open source software, it might be worth mentioning that the acronym FLOSS (attributed to Rishab Ghosh) stands for free/libre and open source software, intended to cover both "free software" (aka "libre software" hence "free/libre") and "open source" software. There exists software whose source code is available but the software is non-free. This can be on account of dependencies on other non-free software to run, or (e.g.) restrictions imposed by the software copyright holder. - Kim Tucker (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libre

Weird thing. The Filipino language, which derives heavily from Spanish, also has the word "libre" which means "free" -- but in Filipino it means "free as in beer" (and does not at all mean "free as in freedom"). -TheCoffee 17:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That should read "borrows", not "derives", unless you are implying that Filipino is a Romance language, which it is definitely not. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken or inaccessible links

The one to Quo Vadis Libre Software seems to be restricted. A version of the article is also available at http://archive.is/aRfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTucker (talk • contribs) 10:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article Libre under development

Comment and assistance welcome. --K (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerns the content currently in the userfied version. — K (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Now how is this pile of rambling supposed to be responded to? Also, this is the talk page of the disambiguation page. If you want to discuss the essay-ish article it previously was, use your undeleted version's talk page. — Keφr 12:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Now how is this pile of rambling supposed to be responded to?"

I have tried to understand the issues and raise discussion in sections which may be independently edited. --K (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If these are just notes for yourself, put them in your userspace. Nobody will ever reply to this incoherent mess you put here. — Keφr 09:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are also notes to keep track of why certain changes are made for future contributors. I am still working on tidying up the notes below to make them more coherent (there are several related pages to check). K (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your userspace is for tidying up things. This is a talk page for users who have already figured out what they want to say. — Keφr 11:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. In this edit I also remove the other 2014 notes which were below to userfied article's talk page. I just hope that this process does not end in the loss of prior attribution information. --K (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: using the userfied version's talk page:

I would have if the page's Talk and its talk history had been included in the move. As previously indicated, it just made sense to me (given that the userfied version of the deleted page had lost these) to put the 2014 discussions with the earlier discussions on the same content where the history is also valid (i.e. here below). It would have made more sense for the talk page of the deleted page (below) (and its history) to stay with the userfied page so that if it is reinstated (properly undeleted) as suggested, there will presumably be no problem (the talk and its history stay where they belong). My suggestion (we are actually in agreement about where to have the discussion) would be to move this talk page to the userfied page's talk page (where I pasted a snapshot without history for safe-keeping) and have the discussions there. The talk about disambiguation can then replace this page (ideally imo when it is renamed Libre (disambiguation)). - K (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: draft moved to mainspace and disambiguation page retained at the primary target for the moment. DrKiernan (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Libre → Libre (disambiguation)
Libre (word) → Libre

– The current Libre page is a disambiguation page. The new version is the Primary. --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC) K (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The draft article has been moved to mainspace; I have updated the RM links accordingly. Red Slash 03:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comments on the latest draft are welcome. - K (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the draft article is ok, (imo) it should replace this Libre disambiguation page which should go to Libre (disambiguation). This involves two moves to existing pages and will require admin assistance. K (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to such a move, or other ideas? Thanks - K (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - the new draft article on Libre (term) is a dicdef of marginal validity, with or without a new AFD it is in so sense absolute majority topic . In ictu oculi (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is not even an article yet. – nafSadh did say 06:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

100% support - for the move as proposed: the draft article out of 'Draft:' into the main article space to Libre. - K (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If not to "Libre", please advise (and seek consensus on) destination: "Libre (word)" vs "Libre (term)", etc..
Thanks - K (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to In ictu oculi and nafSadh:
  - The article has a long history (the move into Draft: is recent - 27 Feb 2015). The salient parts go something like this (dated versions close to the events listed):
    2001/Oct: Libre (on 2001-10-01) started off as little more than a "dicdef" (dictionary definition).
    
    2005/May: Libre (on 2005-05-12) became a redirect to Gratis versus libre where current usage of the word was expanded on.
    
    2012/May-Oct: Update and reinstatement of a separate article Libre (on 2012-10-26).
    
    2014/Oct 16: Libre on (2014-09-18) was speedily deleted.
    Aside: as a watcher of the page with e-mail notifications, I was surprised to have not been notified that this process was happening - only discovered it when visiting the page.
    
    2014/Oct 16: Article userfied (Libre (on 2014-10-16)) and extensively updated over a period of just over 4 months.
    
    2015/Feb 27: Userfied article moved to Draft:Libre after pressing Submit and noting that 'Draft:' is the "Preferred location for AfC submissions".
    
    2015/Mar 1: ... and here we are (Draft:Libre). - K (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    
    2015/Mar 12: ... Libre (word) - nolonger in Draft:. - K (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
100% support moving article out of draft - come on, I can't believe anyone would have suggested any differently. Great work. Support primary topic bid (aka the move as proposed). Red Slash 19:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – move the draft to Libre (word), and if it survives consider launching your primarytopic claim later; or don't. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have accepted the draft. It is now at Libre (word). -- Orduin ^Discuss 01:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would it make sense to edit the links in the requested move template above? (e.g. to avoid opposing because it is in draft (nolonger the case)?). Or would it be better to do that with a relist? - K (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done. Red Slash 03:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other clarification

As this is to that, so that is to this.. right? And then there's those! Perfectly clear to the liberated mind, eh? -- One of these -- • Q ^#o • 19:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]