--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I don't think it is something that needs to be "fixed". It's very deliberately left out, because the FSF, as detailed on their website (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content) does not believe even using the word "content" fits with their goals, and would prefer its use died out entirely. If there were a "GNU Free Content License", *that* would be something that needed to be fixed.
And the FDL was very deliberately written to work well for free software documentation, manulals and textbooks. Its use for non-text-based content was not forseen - yet that is the situation we are faced with. But if they have a semantic hangup on the use of the word 'content' then we could use a different name for the license.
I certainly don't see Wikimedia as producing "content".
What do you call images, sound, and video then? They are not documents. What word do you suggest we use to describe what we have? Is the free content movement operating under a bad name? If so what should it call itself?
'Media' *might* work but has some ambiguity issues. 'Publication' might also work. 'Copyleft' would be redundant. Any other ideas?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com