[Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects

[Daniel Mayer]

--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> I don't think it is something that needs to be "fixed".  It's very 
> deliberately left out, because the FSF, as detailed on their website 
> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content) does not 
> believe even using the word "content" fits with their goals, and would 
> prefer its use died out entirely.  If there were a "GNU Free Content 
> License", *that* would be something that needed to be fixed.

And the FDL was very deliberately written to work well for free software
documentation, manulals and textbooks. Its use for non-text-based content was
not forseen - yet that is the situation we are faced with. But if they have a
semantic hangup on the use of the word 'content' then we could use a different
name for the license. 

> I certainly don't see Wikimedia as producing "content".

What do you call images, sound, and video then? They are not documents. What
word do you suggest we use to describe what we have? Is the free content
movement operating under a bad name? If so what should it call itself? 

'Media' *might* work but has some ambiguity issues. 'Publication' might also
work. 'Copyleft' would be redundant. Any other ideas? 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com