Anthere wrote:
On wikipedia [[free content]], there is the following paragraph :
Free content licenses differ from open content licenses in that they require a "source" copy of the content to be provided. For example, a free content publisher should make the source document (f.ex. InDesign or word-processor file) available along with a PDF, which in this case would be considered the "object" copy of the creative work. Some free content licenses have stronger requirements. For example, the GNU Free Documentation License not only requires that a "source" copy of the content is provided, but that the source copy should be in an "transparent" format, i.e., in an open format whose specification is freely available to everybody.
It is my feeling that the following point stating that free content licenses differ from open content licenses for the reason free content licenses require a "source" copy of the content, while open content license do not require such a "source" copy
... is making me feel very unconfortable.
This seems to be a pretty accurate summary of the current positions as far as I can tell.
The "free" side, principally the FSF, proposes (and writes into their licenses) that source must be available, whch is explicitly specified in their "free software definition" and implemented analogously in their non-software licenses.
The "open" side, such as the Creative Commons, does not have any requirements at all about source. For example, if Wikipedia were licensed under the cc-by-sa license, I could produce a modified version and publish it in print, and refuse to provide you any sort of electronically-readable source at all, let alone the modified wikitext. All I'd have to do is give you permission to reuse it---it'd be up to you to scan it in and OCR it and etc. Since Wikipedia's under the GFDL, we can require people who publish derivative copies of Wikipedia to give us their electronic source, not just the physical paper book.
-Mark