A while ago I posted here about the Free Content Definition. Our goal with this definition is to create a stable reference point by which we can say that a particular work or license is considered "free" (to use, modify, copy, modify ''and'' copy, etc.).
We're now moving closer towards a 1.0 release to this definition, and I'd like to invite feedback from all interested parties on some recent changes I have made to the "unstable" (openly editable) copy:
http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&dif...
In line with discussions and feedback: * I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to derivative works instead of modified versions. * I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a free license is and what a free work is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now. * I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software. * I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.
Please leave comments and suggestions on the talk page.
In case you haven't seen, some volunteers have also started to create a matrix of free content licenses that meet the definition: http://freecontentdefinition.org/Licenses
For those who will be there, Mako Hill, the co-initator of the definition, is going to give a presentation at Wikimania about it: http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:BMH1
When we release a 1.0, I hope that Wikimedia will be one of many organizations which will use this definition as a reference point for clarifying what they mean when they say "free content." :-)
Cheers,
Erik