I like this idea. This way, we can plan future talks based on feedback from the first one or two.
In this case, I suggest that for the first one (or two) talks, we focus on what free (as in freedom) is and why that’s important on a general level. And here we can use @rpez’s suggestion:
This initial talk about Free Cultural Works would work well with my suggested viewing of Everything is a Remix.
Then, in later talks, we can talk about open source software and open hardware. When we get there, I think we could do one of the following:
- Clearly define that for the purposes of our lectures, “open source” means free as in freedom and leave it at that.
- Try to clarify the difference between free as in freedom and “open source”.
For option 1, the advantage is that we’ve clearly defined open source to include freedom in its meaning. This way, freedom is emphasised. The disadvantage is that for the rest of the world, there are many people who only thinks of “open source” for its practical benefits and not freedom.
For option 2, the advantage is that we talk about the difference between free software and open source, so the audience knows that there is this division in the software world. The disadvantage, as described by others on this thead, is that talking about this can very easily add to the audience’s confusion.
Once again I would like to come back to the question: What is our target audience? If they are already hackers/makers, then option 2 is more doable. But if our audience is the “general public” (broadly defined), then I can say from personal experience that they would be extremely easily confused so option 2 would be problematic.
If it’s just me, I am more interested in developing a talk for a very general/non-specialist audience. This means we have to assume zero prior knowledge. This would be people who have never heard of “open source” or any of the related terms. Additionally, these are people who are brought up to assume that copyright/patent-maximalism is the only way to “incentivise” innovation and for people to make a living.
Having said all that, my takeaway from the discussion so far is that for the first talk, we should focus on the problems with the current copyright/patent (and other things like trademarks and trade secrets) system, and how Free Cultural Works is a good solution. Does this sound right?
If so, there’s definitely exisiting material I can put to use for this purpose.