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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content