[OpenFontLibrary] libre/open fonts

[Robert Martinez]

Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> Nicu Buculei wrote:
>   
>> Fontfreedom at aol.com wrote:
>>     
>>>  >I highly recommend "libre/open fonts" instead to describe fonts which
>>>  >respect the 4 foundational software freedoms as defined by the FSF in
>>>  >the specific context of fonts: run the program for any purpose, study
>>>  >and adapt the program to your needs, distribute copies of the program,
>>>  >improve and release improvements to the program.
>>>  
>>> Being unfamiliar with the word "libre", I've checked several
>>> dictionaries online, and printed ones, and i've come to the conclusion
>>> libre isn't a word in the English language. I did find "librae", which
>>> is defined as the British Pound. Perhaps we should stick to using
>>> words which have previously been defined in dictionaries when
>>> describing how free and open our fonts are?
>>>       
>> The term is in wide use http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libre
>>
>> It was introduced precisely because the English word "Free" is not good
>> enough due to the confusion with "gratis"
>>     
>
> Yes, you're entirely right about this.
>
> The ambiguity doesn't exist in many languages from the Romance family:
> liber, libre, livre, liber, libero, lliure, etc  (finding the
> corresponding language is left as an exercise to the fine people on this
> list)...
>
> And as we can see from this page on the FSF's website, they are
> recommended translation of the concept of Free Software:
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/fs-translations.html
>
> "Libre" as in Libre Graphics Meeting or Libre Planet, a recent FSF
> event: http://www.fsf.org/associate/meetings/2009/
>
>
>   

I guess a en.wiktionary.org entry does not mean it is widely used, but 
I'm not a native speaker.
(there is just a link to the free software movement itself, and a link 
to the term "gratis" :P)

It is a foreign word and you still have to explain its exact meaning in 
contrast to free, too. - So that isn't a big advantage.
The FSF certainly points out to translate it as "libre" quite often - 
but that is only for translation. They probably call themselves "Free" 
Software Foundation in english for a reason.

"free" as in Freedom is the right term to stick to imho.
If we have to explain it to people there is nothing we can do about it.
If there was a better solution to this "Freedom Advocats" would have 
come up with it years ago, and as far as I am concernd "libre" is a good 
try - but lacks the necessary common effort to push it forward. As the 
"free software" movement gains momentum we should not start to fork.

I vote for explaining "free" rather than "libre", and I don't see how we 
can spare the explaining in the first place with "libre/open".

maybe "truly free" is an idea?
At least it raises the question what "false free" is and facilitates 
explaining afterwards :P