On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 08:30:18AM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
Very interesting question, Anthere.
Is there even a generally accepted definition of '''free content'''? A search within the website of the Free Software Foundation yields no results. No sources are cited in the article either.
Perhaps it is time for the Wikimedia Foundation (in collaboration with Creative Commons and the FSF?) to create a free content definition, and to make a list of free content licenses. In the meantime, it is hard to see this article as being anything but shaky original research.
Agreed, for the most part.
Part of the problem is that "free" and "open", as applied to distribution licenses, are issues of quite a lot of contention, with a whole lot of overlap in their application and meaning. Neither one has a perfectly nailed-down definition, as far as I can tell, and there will probably continue to be arguments over the use of both terms for years to come.
As hinted in another post in this thread, "open content" and "free content" are terms adapted from "open source software" and "free software". Insofar as we can agree on what those terms mean, there should be a certain amount of etymological basis for definitions of terms like "open content" and "free content", but ultimately it doesn't translate perfectly well because of the fact that often the analogy between software and documents is fundamentally flawed.
In skimming the article and reading some of the brief quotes from it here and on the talk page, I noticed that some of the contended-over descriptions of the differences between "free" and "open" actually sounded like the differences between "copyleft" and other free/libre/open licenses, while other descriptions of those differences seemed to ignore that distinction (where "copyleft" licenses are those that are "viral" in nature, enforcing free/libre/open standards not only on the original licensed work, but also on derivative works).
Probably the best way to handle this, in my mind, is to find cites for all points of view on the matter, write up treatments of them, and present them in all their contentious glory for the reader to sort out. That's sorta at the heart of NPOV policy, anyway. We certainly don't need to have Wikipedia (or Wiktionary) trying to create "official" definitions. Whether or not WMF gets involved in development of "official" definitions of terms is another matter entirely (and, frankly, I think the Foundation site might be a good place for such a thing, but I haven't really thought it through very much so don't take my word for it).
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]