--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
The FSF doesn't even use the term "content" in the first place (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content), but they do use the phrase "free documentation". They don't define that phrase specifically, but say "The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free software [code]." (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html), and for code they say "The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted." (see http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html). So the public domain is free, even according to the FSF.
What mav ''intends'' to say, I believe, is that Wikinews should be COPYLEFT.
Yes copyleft is what I was talking about. And for me it is a central part of what free content is. That's one of the reasons why I want to help create a GNU Free Content License. The FDL doesn't mention *content* as you rightly state - that is something that needs to be fixed.
There are certainly arguments to be made for that position. But public domain and CC-by documents ARE FREE documents. As such, even the FSF would be willing to use them in GNU documentation. PD and CC-by just are not copyleft. (CC-by-sa is copyleft, while CC-by-nd, CC-by-nc, CC-by-nc-sa and CC-by-nc-nd are not even free, at least not by the FSF's standards.)
If a license does not allow for positive feedback between the source and the derivative work, then I will not support using that license.
What is the difference between free and copyleft? Fundamentally, a document is free if ''it'' may be used freely: freely read, freely copied, freely modified, and freely distributed (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html or http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). A document is copyleft if ''its derivatives'' may be used freely.
When I say 'free' I mean free as in cost and free as in freedom.
... We can have this argument, but let's be clear about what we're arguing over. AFAIK, ''nobody'' is advocating that Wikimedia publish non-free articles. (There is the issue of incorporating fair use items ''within'' articles, such as quotations and images, but that is a different discussion.) The question is whether their freedom must be protected by copyleft.
I'm advocating the full use of the word free (no cost and copyleft).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/