Hello
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.
Actually, I thought that open content meant that precisely the "source" of the content had to be provided, made available for public scrutiny and to ensure somehow a sort of transparency. In other words, I thought that an open source stuff, for example code, was basically mostly about saying "hey, this is how I wrote the software, this is the code used to make that stuff work, just check it !)
While I thought free content was related to using the content, reusing it, redistributing it and if desired, modifying it (which requires the source to be available).
I removed the sentence of the text as I found it not only very confusing, but strictly speaking wrong in terms of making a difference between what is free and what is open.
To be fair, reading the whole articles on the matter is a real mess, because of such confusing sentences. Perhaps you developers can make sense of it and accept that several definitions are given to the same terms and that conflicting definitions just results in giving contradicting differences between 2 terms, but to be fair, these articles are so confused that they are not far from being useless.
I have been wondering if the problem was not in the definition of the term "source". Can anyone explain to me what is "source" ????
I tried to discuss it in the article page and I was basically shut down (sort of "I am right, you are wrong, this article is perfect and you are the only one with this crazy idea so get out of here - I exaggerate... but the content is back in, and I still do not get it).
Now, I could obviously just put my hat on all this and consider that "WHO CARES ABOUT OPEN AND FREE AFTER ALL !"
The problem is that I am spending all my free time on a "free and open" stuff, and am now wondering if I am working for what I think I am. And when I present wikipedia, maybe I just say crap entirely on the topic.
Consequently, if some of you could look at the free content article, I would be delighted.
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.
Erik
Erik Moeller a écrit:
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.
Erik
Interesting suggestion...
Wikipedia can note propose original research itself... but in such a undefined field... only one more reference would be worth it...
Incidently, I noticed that the link toward [[free content]] on the main page was removed... I am sure there was a link to the article before...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=11269837&ol...
At some point, this link went to [[open content]]
This is a sure sign of confusion...
Ant
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.
I think it's generally thought to be defined as free software except for general content rather than software in particular.
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 ]
Chad Perrin (perrin@apotheon.com) [050429 04:29]:
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.
*psst* or have a friendly academic write some for us if we can't find ones that ring true.
(Not that anyone I know would ever have done anything like this, you understand.)
- d.
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 08:10 +0200, Anthere wrote:
I have been wondering if the problem was not in the definition of the term "source". Can anyone explain to me what is "source" ????
That's one definition that's pretty easy: the "source data" of any piece of information is _the most preferred form_ of that data for making changes. So for program code that would imply fully-commented source code as the original developer used; for wiki articles it would be the wikitext. For images it might be some graphic editor's native format that contains info on layers and objects and such. For other forms of text, it might be native files from Word, pre- transformed XML with XSLT stylesheets, etc.
On a larger issue, I don't think Wikipedia should fall into the trap of accepting definitions of terms from activists. NPOV and the needs of an encyclopedia demand that we not allow hijacking of the language by folks like FSF, OSI, and others, good though their intentions may be. For example, any definition of "free software" that includes the GPL but not Sun's Java or MySQL is a horrible abuse of plain English. Of course, we should report that large groups of people use these terms in specialized ways, so long as we refrain from endorsing such use.
Your particular case is another good example of language abuse: for software, the "generally accepted" (meaning as forced upon geeks like us by FSF and OSI) notions of "free software" and "open source software" mean "comes with source code and licensed to require disclosure of source in derivative products" and just "comes with source code" respectively; whereas in the textual content world, the terms "free content" and "open content" are generally used interchangeably to mean "licensed to allow redistribution"; but some activists (those with whom you are arguing) would have "free" mean "comes with source and licensed to require distribution of source in derivatives".
Lee Daniel Crocker a écrit:
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 08:10 +0200, Anthere wrote:
I have been wondering if the problem was not in the definition of the term "source". Can anyone explain to me what is "source" ????
That's one definition that's pretty easy: the "source data" of any piece of information is _the most preferred form_ of that data for making changes. So for program code that would imply fully-commented source code as the original developer used; for wiki articles it would be the wikitext. For images it might be some graphic editor's native format that contains info on layers and objects and such. For other forms of text, it might be native files from Word, pre- transformed XML with XSLT stylesheets, etc.
On a larger issue, I don't think Wikipedia should fall into the trap of accepting definitions of terms from activists. NPOV and the needs of an encyclopedia demand that we not allow hijacking of the language by folks like FSF, OSI, and others, good though their intentions may be. For example, any definition of "free software" that includes the GPL but not Sun's Java or MySQL is a horrible abuse of plain English. Of course, we should report that large groups of people use these terms in specialized ways, so long as we refrain from endorsing such use.
Your particular case is another good example of language abuse: for software, the "generally accepted" (meaning as forced upon geeks like us by FSF and OSI) notions of "free software" and "open source software" mean "comes with source code and licensed to require disclosure of source in derivative products" and just "comes with source code" respectively; whereas in the textual content world, the terms "free content" and "open content" are generally used interchangeably to mean "licensed to allow redistribution"; but some activists (those with whom you are arguing) would have "free" mean "comes with source and licensed to require distribution of source in derivatives".
I see...
Well... I guess I will let the inaccuracy tag on the page for a few months then, and wait and see what happens... while the definition could maybe evolve by various means thanks to us possibly...
Sigh
Thanks Lee Daniel
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
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org