Talk:Open content
From Academic Kids
I think that there are differences between the GNU FDL licenses and licenses proposed by the Open Content org which you mentioned. I fear this is going to be confused and will lead to such a confusion like freeware, shareware and public domain programs. Open Content license is in my opinion much more restrictive than GNU FDL. Open Content is one of many attempts to make content more open. But using open content as a synonym for this process would be misleading because the license itself is more restrictive. --StefanRybo
We do use the GNU FDL. If you want to raise an issue about what we must do in order to be 100% in compliance with the license, feel free to do so--but not by editing this article. The mailing list, perhaps. I have, ugh, simply not found the time (which I should have done long ago) to make the few piddling changes that need to be made. Please don't be petty about this; try to be charitable. --LMS
I was; since I believe the statement "Wikipedia uses the GFDL" is misleading without context, which is given on the GFDL page, I thought it best rather than to argue the point, just to delete the flat statement, and leave the link to the GFDL, which explains the issue properly.
I think I'm glad you think the changes necessary are "piddling". I hope you make such changes forthwith.
I'm just going to edit the statement to be more accurate, then. --TheCunctator
And I am changing it back. I'm not going to argue about this with you, Cunctator. Just leave it alone. Please. --LMS
Instead of referring to the "Google Directory", it would be better to refer to the source of the data: the Open Directory project at http://dmoz.org --Hari
Can we talk here about the Free Art License ? http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html --Nÿco
the http://www.creativecommon.org offers a number of customizable open content licenses for free online. --rett.org
I don't want to tread on any toes over people's definition of open content, so I've not added this straight in, but I think it would be worth adding The Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml). cfp 14:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Public Library of Science is open access, not open content. I've removed it from the list. The minor, but important, difference is that open access can be read by anyone, but cannot be modified by anyone. Also, open access is not always in the public domain or under GDFL. Sayeth 21:45, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see that this article talks about Wikipedia itself. That doesn't seem particularly "encyclopedia-like"; I doubt you'll see a "normal" encyclopedia ever reference itself. Discussing Wikimedia projects in the opening paragraph just doesn't seem objective or professional at all. ~ Booyabazooka 00:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- True. I have just removed the sentence mentioning Wikipedia. -- Taku 03:22, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
You know, considering how evangelical certain groups are about this subject, I am pleased and surprised at how straightforward and informative this entry is. Good job, folks. -- Bblackmoor 22:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Common content?
"Common content are ones licensed in the Creative Commons. They are called open content only if they are licensed as share-alike (one of the CC's options)."
Okay, first of all, I've extensively studied this subject and have never ever heard of that. Second, it contradicts an earlier statement in the introduction that public domain materials count as open content. Public domain is not share-alike. Is there really a significant group that considers "open content" to imply a share-alike license? If so, we should at least clarify this. Graue 00:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. This sounds wrong. Maybe that comment was not meant to stress the copyleft aspect, but to rule out "non-commercial" and "no derivative works". Whatever the initial intention, I support fixing that paragraph. Rl 06:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Apparently there is a project called Common Content that tries to collect as much CC-licensed stuff as it can, and I guess the name has been used as a generic term. I rewrote the paragraph, so it should be clear now. Graue 01:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
