Talk:Free content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.

To-do list for Free content:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

Contents 1 Free Art License 2 Whole article needs expanding 3 Some public domain 4 Moving to "Free-content" 5 Bloating of the article 6 Why was Source Requirement edits deleted? 7 Contradiction 8 My worry about the phrase "free content"... 9 Clarification 10 Free Content 11 Monopolistic Right 12 Free content and open content 13 More or Less ? 14 oh my goodness 15 About IANG license 16 Question 17 Trademarks?

[edit] Free Art License

Can we talk here about the Free Art License ? http://artlibre.org/ http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html It is a copyleft license for art. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nyco (talk • contribs) 03:31, 20 August 2002 (UTC)

FREE AS IN BEER?! Come on now! There must be a better way to decribe something that has no cost. As a new user, I was utterly astounded by this word use. By the way, the whole page should be shortened and clarified--I stopped reading about 1/4 of the way into it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.126.106.29 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whole article needs expanding

Given this is one of the first links from the front page, and newcomers may have no idea what free content is, this page could do with a lot more explaining, but I'm not an expert on the subject and am busy what with it being Dec 25th and all. Let's try and make this entry a bit clearer.

--Vodex 23:17, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a horrid article and I'm not sure quite what a new user would make of it. To be honest, I doubt anyone with less than a strong interest in this area would bother trying to read it. Dan100 09:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

That's not very constructive critism, what exactly is "horrid" about it? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:23, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

You're right, that wasn't very constructive. So I've done something a bit more constructive - I've re-written it. Dan100 15:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some public domain

A 'public domain' work does not have a current license (e.g., a work is in the public domain because its original copyright has expired), but many definitions would include some public domain works as free-content - what definitions? This could do with tightening-up. Dan100 15:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

All public domain works are free content by definition. — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:52, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

I hope you're right - changed article to reflect that. Dan100 19:09, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Would it be worth pointing out that while the content might be Public Domain - a particular copy of it might not be. For example - all of Rembrant's paintings are in the public domain - but a photograph of it is actually owned by the photographer and a postcard or print of it might be owned by a gallery or a publisher or both. In the same way the text of Shakespeare plays are in the public domain but a book of his plays, printed in the last 75 years cannot simply be scanned and reprinted by anyone.--172.212.30.52 11:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving to "Free-content"

It's written "Free content" not "Free-content" right? — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:19, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

"Free content" is for noun-phrase usage (e.g., "Wikipedia is an example of free content"), whereas "free-content" is for adjectival use (e.g., "Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, a free-content license"). —Alexander 07:53, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

Using the noun phrase ("free content") for the article title is probably best, so I think things are good where they are now on that front. —Alexander 02:04, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

[edit] Bloating of the article

Am i the only one that thinks that this version of the article is still the best one? Since then it has seen two rewrites which IMO are progressively worse, the current one gets the concept wrong as well as its very definition, makes a self reference ( "at the bottom of this page." ) and this new section on libre and gratis is redundant, especially after linking to free software.

Earlier on this talk page there is a call for the expansion of this article, well it doesn't need expanding, even if it's linked from the main page, it was long enough as it was (longer != better; less is more ...), it deals with a *very* simple concept which can be effectively explained within three paragraphs. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:24, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

I do not think the "Libre and Gratis" section is redundant. It emphasizes an important and often-overlooked distinction that is vital to understanding what free content is. In my view, if an explanation of the distinction is repeated in related articles, it's a Good Thing -- and examples like "free as in beer" and "free as in speech" only serve to bring this rather abstract point home. —Alexander 07:58, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

I further agree the bloat is over the top, and so will revert. Dan100 13:16, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

I cut it down even more, could probably use some copyediting. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:50, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

Wow, excuse me but what happened to the article? I don't think it was a good idea to just revert back all the changes I made. I think my improvements to the article were not "bloat." Can you please give reasons for applying that label before reverting so much of my effort? Let's be a little more respectful please, and discuss exactly what constitutes bloat in the article and how we can fix each case (deleting or rearranging, perhaps). Your revert has re-introduced so many mistakes and unclear phrases, and removed valuable information about what free content is that we should really move back to yesterday's version. —Alexander 08:56, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

I prefer the extended version. Try to make it more precise if you think it's too fuzzy... Why shouldn't simple concepts have larger Wikipedia articles? :) G-u-a-k-@ 13:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I have no problem making the article more precise, and reorganizing, and maybe the "Libre and Gratis" section should go, but let's hear some reasons for getting rid of it other than a declaration that it's "bloat" (perhaps a response to my comment above about the section would be nice). I do think that some of the details in the first section should perhaps be moved down into a different section, so as to keep the top part as an overview without getting into the nitty-gritty too much. —Alexander 02:02, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Basically it's about overcomplication of a simple subjects, the term was explained perfectly well before and is now not only explained inaccurately but in 5x the space the old one took.

Before we go into how the current version is inaccurate let's go into what the article should convey, free content is an attemt to bring free software into the none-software world (although free software also = free content), the article should make it clear that free content is, as opposed to none-free content something which in one way or another, either by permission of the copyright holder, by it being in the public domain, by the author local laws not being compatable with international copyrightlaws yadayadayada..., gives you... (modifycations of the free software definition by yours truly):

• The freedom to run the program [use the content], for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works [the content/work], and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this [or whatever constitutes as source for the given content].
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program [content], and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code [or whatever is applicable in your case] is a precondition for this.

That is it, articles should aim to explain to the reader what something is why and how, and the intro paragraph should primarely do the first of those three, the concept we're discussing here is absurdly simple, so simple indeed that it's easy to loose sight of how truly simple it is and give yourself into creeping featureism which this article has become a victim of.

Now, onto what's wrong with the current one (although my version was no angel either):

Free content describes any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content which is licensed in a way that does not restrict people's freedom to use the content for any purpose, especially, to copy it, modify it, and redistribute it.

Eh,, no, not especially that's all there is to it, those four are not optional, the current version gets the very definition of it wrong in its first sentence.

It is important to the definition of free content that such works may be modified, expanded, and incorporated within other works, and that the resulting work may itself be distributed, either just as freely as or under more restrictive terms than the original.

Important to the definition, as if the definition was some entity, furthermore it goes on about how it should be able to be modified, expanded, and now incorporated (incorporating something is a logical subset of modify+redistribute which makes this totally redundant)

If content is available to be used but may not be changed, it is not strictly-speaking free content.

This is totally misleading, not only is it not strictly speaking not free content, it's not free content at all, this is similar to claiming that black is not strictly speaking white and that up is not strictly speaking down, it leads the reader to belive that the two are somewhat alike while they are in fact complete opposites.

Moving on, the entire second paragraph is okey-ish, could be improved.

The third and sixth paragraphs should be merged into a paragraph that discusses the copyright status works must fulfill.

To anwser G-u-a-k-@ i don't think that articles dealing with simple concepts (which his example was not,) should nessacerily have short articles, i do however think that they should aim to explain their subject as best they can, which i feel this article totally fails at. –Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:47, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for being specific about your concerns. I can tell that you care about this topic and are willing to work with others to make the article better. Now, let me respond to some of your points. The history of free content indeed derives much from the free software movement, but I do not believe that an explanation of the historical influences of the concept belongs in the top section. Perhaps you should add a "History" section talking about those influences. As you say, the purpose of the first few paragraphs is to say what free content is, not to go into its history. The direct parallel to the FSF's four freedoms is interesting but a confusing way to explain the concept to anyone not familiar with the FSF and its mission/goals. And anyway, the concept of free content is much broader and more general than that of free software, as you point out when you say that free software is free content (but not vice-versa).

"Free content describes any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content which is licensed in a way that does not restrict people's freedom to use the content for any purpose, especially, to copy it, modify it, and redistribute it.

"Eh,, no, not especially that's all there is to it, those four are not optional, the current version gets the very definition of it wrong in its first sentence."

I think you're confused about what "especially" means, it does not mean or imply "optionally" -- rather it emphasizes certain specifics as necessary. Of course that's not "all there is to it"; only three freedoms are mentioned and there are at least four (à la four freedoms, and they have sub-freedoms). But that's exactly why I put in "especially" so as not to confuse the reader into thinking that was all there was to it. So the current version does not get the definition wrong, rather it emphasizes some but not all aspects of a rather complicated concept.

Important to the definition, as if the definition was some entity, furthermore it goes on about how it should be able to be modified, expanded, and now incorporated (incorporating something is a logical subset of modify+redistribute which makes this totally redundant)

I'm not sure what you're after with the "as if the definition was some entity" comment -- is it a nominalist worry about the ontological status of definitions or something? Would "important to the concept" be better? If so, feel free to change the wording. The purpose of the sentence with incorporated in it is not to talk about a new freedom but to note that licenses place an upper limit on the freedom of derivative works -- they may be redistributed either just as freely or more restrictively that the original (never more freely). So again it seems you've misunderstood what the sentence is getting at.

As for "strictly-speaking", yes that can go (I'll delete it right now). I put that in there to clarify what someone else had written, but you're right, it's misleading.

I don't think the third through sixth paragraphs should be merged. They do pretty well as they are -- any specific problems with them?

The concept of free content is not extremely simple, and the ambiguity of the word "free" in English doesn't help. I think we disagree about the level of nuance and qualification needed to fully explain it. On the other hand, I'm all for as simple an exposition as possible, as long as it's complete and forthright. Thanks for your effort, and let's continue to work on making the article better. —Alexander 21:04, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

[edit] Why was Source Requirement edits deleted?

I'm not at all sure why my edits on the source requirements of free content licenses were automatically deleted. I've edit them back working on the basis they were accidently deleted when reverting someone else's edits. --Axon 09:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

These two statements appear to contradict one another:

"Importantly, when free content is modified, expanded, or incorporated within another work, the resulting work must be legally distributable, either just as freely as or under more restrictive terms than the original." And

"free content encompasses all works in the public domain"

A derivative of a public domain work can be held proprietary by the creator of the derivative work, and never see the light of day again. These are certainly "more restrictive terms than the original", but it's not "legally distributable". Any distribution by anyone other than the author would violate the author's copyright, by which they may retain all rights. In short, public domain is not copyleft.

Which needs to be fixed? The first one, I believe — I'm not too familiar with how this term is used in practice, but due to my personal biases I don't believe a work needs to be copyleft to be free content. Deco 10:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesnt. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:39, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

I have at least a quick fix. We can change "when free content is modified …" to "when freely licensed content is modified …"; actually this isn't so bad because the discrepancy you note really is a technical point which I believe is clarified later on (in the paragraph about the public domain). —Alexander 01:58, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm confused now — the article seems to be pulling in two directions. The Free-content licenses section says non-copyleft is okay, but the intro still says "the resulting work must be legally distributable" (emphasis mine), and the section "Free content and open content" says "Free content licenses differ from open content licenses in that they require a "source" copy of the content to be provided", requirements which most certainly do not apply to public domain or even most non-copyleft licenses. I might feel better if statements specifically applying to copyleft free content licenses were qualified as such. Am I missing something? Deco 02:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your clear thinking on this topic. This kind of careful consideration is exactly what we need, and what will make the article better. Most of the work that I've put into this article has been in the introduction, and I'm most vested in that, so let me respond first to your concerns about the "resulting work must be legally distributable" (emphasis yours) part. Granted these various distinctions can be confusing, but actually I think the intro is correct as it stands. All licenses, if they are to be free-content licenses, must allow derivative works to be distributable. What you have noted is that non-copyleft licenses allow derivative works to be distributed (which they couldn't be if they weren't distributable) under terms which are more restrictive, and may themselves fail to honor and uphold the four freedoms that make free content what it is. In other words, a derivative of a free-content work must be legally distributable at least by the deriver -- the derivative must be distributable but not necessarily redistributable. So I think the article (well at least the intro) has it right. As for the "Free content and open content" section, I agree it needs work. I didn't write that one and I haven't gotten around to making any attempt to fix it. Feel free to do so yourself. —Alexander 04:39, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Hmm… As I read over my reply I realize that it also addresses your original concern about the public domain. Derivative works of a work in the public domain are legally distributable (under free or non-free terms), but again, not necessarily redistributable, so that requirement is not violated. I think I'll put the wording back to how it was. But let us all know if there is nonetheless an error in my judgement. —Alexander 04:50, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Your explanation does make sense. If I understand, you're saying that the owner of the original work cannot significantly restrict how a derived work is used, although the derived work itself may not be free content and so, in some cases, its owner can restrict its use. To avoid any future confusion arising from this, could I ask you to concisely explain this in the article? Thanks a lot. Deco 06:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that there is a fundamental contradiction : when you say that the resulting work must, you immediatly introduce a restriction, which is the negation of freedom. So we can ask ourselves if "free-content licences" has something to do with freedom : I definitely put this statement into question. I put also into question the free nature of this encyclopedia. Freedom can not be jailed into words, but men are attempting to do that. When freedom is, ownership is not, and so it is for restriction, whatever they are, even the restriction related to the image we can have about freedom. Freedom is nor an image, neither a point of view or a licence. When there is understanding that ownership is a pure illusion, then you work anonymously, i.e all your work is into "public domain". -- 29 December 2005 —the preceding comment is by 81.255.78.115 (talk • contribs) : Please sign your posts!.

[edit] My worry about the phrase "free content"...

... is that it can easily be reversed to content-free. :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

"Free content [...] must be able to be changed if it may be used at all."

I can't quite grasp what this is supposed to convey. That one has to be allowed to change content to put the "free content" label on it? --Dittaeva 10:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have changed it to "For content to be free, it must be allowed to change it" for now, although I do not find it much better. --Dittaeva 10:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that isn't even grammatical. I've reverted to the previous version, but if you still think there's a problem, let's discuss it and come up with a grammatical solution. —Alexander 17:28, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Well, if you explain to me what is being said, I might come up with some suggestion, but as it stands now I'm not sure what is meant. --Dittaeva 00:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suppose you have some artistic work and you wish to determine whether or not it is free content. What the above claim says is that unless the content may (legally) be changed (e.g., expanded, abridged, incorporated into another work, translated, annotated), it is not free content. If a work may be used at all, it must be changeable if it is to count as free content. Does this help? —Alexander 13:17, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

[edit] Free Content

In a communist society such as in Red China, Free Content is limited --Comm College Professor of IT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.168.115.5 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 25 February 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monopolistic Right

The introduction states that copyright gives you monopolistic control. Copyright does not give you a monopoly right. All it gives you is an exclusive right. For example, if someone in a different part of your city comes up with the same poem as you did a month ago, but did so independent of you, you haven't any right to stop that person from publishing the poem. A patent on the other hand gives you a monopolistic right. sol 02:06, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free content and open content

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. I am perplex about this whole paragraph. It does not seem to fit with the definition of what open and free are. I find it at worse false, at best confusing. Could possibly someone help me here ? Anthere 11:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Anthere. I wrote that paragraph which summarises one of the common differences between the two kinds of licenses. I'm not sure, but I don't think it's appropriate that you just delete the paragraph simply because you are "perplexed" by it: do you agree with it or not, and if not, you should explain what your issues with it are and give some more detailed reason as to why it should be deleted. --Axon 13:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not delete it, I moved here to discuss it. I have been thinking recently of writing a open and free for dummies on meta (for wikipedians and artists). I am very perplex by your paragraph. If you allow me, I'll explain why in a few hours and I hope you can help me in my little text (probably planned next week).

A first point is what caracterise the difference between both is certainly not that the free provide a source while the open does not.

At least not for me... Or... then the other articles seem not to fit with this one :-( Can you explain me that better please ? I act here totally in good faith trying to get it... Anthere

Hi Anthere,

Speaking from a wikipedian perspective you did delete the paragraph from the article. Storing the body of the text in the talk page is redundant as the deleted paragraph will be stored in the history of the page anyway. It is considered good wikiquette to at least discuss controversial edits, such as the deletion of huge chunks of text, in the talk page first.

Secondly, the paragraph only notes a common difference between open and free content licenses and makes no "characterisation" in the fundamental differences between both types of licese. There are no widely accepted definitions of what constitutes a free content or even open content license (although, one would imagine free content licenses would conform to the four software freedoms of the FSF). I've had considerable experience with both forms of license and, unlike open source and free software licenses, all the open content licenses I've encountered lack a source requirement (see CCPL, OPL, OGL, etc.) compared to free content licenses (GFDL, DSL, etc).

It is also worth noting that the content of other wikipedia articles should not inform the content of a specific article. Wikipedia is constantly changing and being modified and articles may have mistakes and ommisions. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'd be interested in more specific reasons why you deleted this section. Do you know of any open content licenses that require a source be provided? If so, do these open content licenses constitute a majority or only a minority of licenses? --Axon 10:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speaking from a wikipedian perspective you did delete the paragraph from the article. It depends. There is also a rule that says "be bold". Often, I noticed that when I just left a note in the talk page saying "I do not agree with this", I could just find it uncommented months later. Generally, it is rather helpful to be bold in this that it makes things moves :-)

Secondly, the paragraph only notes a common difference between open and free content licenses and makes no "characterisation" in the fundamental differences between both types of licese. Two points. First, I would like to know more about your legal background ? Note to criticise it in the least, but rather to ask you whether you would be interested in joining the legal departement of the Foundation ? I recently set up a list to discuss legal issues related to us, and must confess my move here is also to try to find out "who could help us there".

Second point. I went recently to a meeting with artists. And realised that those guys were totally confused in the whole mess of license and differences between open and free. I also noticed that many wikipedians were confused at all. Me included. So I dig up in our own resource, and must unfortunately say that if I know better than before, I found several inconsistancies which make me strongly doubt what I read. In the end, the wikipedia resource is possibly good for lawyers, possibly good for all those nicely fighting the delicacies of differences, but for all of us laymen, it is just very confusing.

So, I would be interested that this is clarified, and that at least the most widely recognised definition of both is pinpoint, while letting all the various points of view listed in another paragraph. I put below an example.

It is also worth noting that the content of other wikipedia articles should not inform the content of a specific article. When 2 articles are just saying the opposite, I am sorry, it is problematic.

I'd be interested in more specific reasons why you deleted this section. Exemples of what is confusing me. I noted you did not answer to my last comment.

In Open source, I find Open source or open-source software (OSS) is any computer software distributed under a license which allows users to change and/or share the software freely.

It is the definition of the introduction. With no explanation of what freely mean in that context. It does not seem to me to be the definition of what open is at all.

In Open source, further down I also find Open-source software is required to have its source code freely available; end-users have the right to modify and redistribute the software, as well as the right to package and sell the software.

But this is not true of all open source software.

When I read above Free content licenses differ from open content licenses in that they require a "source" copy of the content to be provided., that directly means for me that free content require a source and differ from open content in that that open software does not require a source. This is what *I* read. But I think that open requires a source. Does it or does it not ? If it does require a source as well, the sentence is just wrong. If it does sometimes require a source, then the sentence is not really wrong, but very misleading because that mean that this point is not opposing the two types of licences. In both cases, this sentence should just not be there.

Do you understand what I mean ?

Anthere 09:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Anthere,

It depends. There is also a rule ... "be bold". [If] I just left a note in the talk page saying "I do not agree with this", I could just find it uncommented months later. I appreciate the need to get attention: too many people on Wikipedia ignore the talk pages. That said, the guidelines for wikiquette mention that deletions should be avoided. Perhaps a better tactic to get attention to your remarks would be to mark sections with a template on the article rather than deleting them and risk starting edit wars and breaching Wikipedia guidelines?

Two points. First, I would like to know more about your legal background? I have no legal experience. I have some experience with open source and free software licenses as applied to non-software works, specifically documents and written content. I am president of the Free Roleplaying Community, a group dedicated to publishing and licensing roleplaying games under free content licenses. If you think this would be helpful let me know.

When 2 articles are just saying the opposite, I am sorry, it is problematic. That is a problem. My point is that why should we assume that one Wikipedia article is correct and the other incorrect (i.e. this article) and delete that content without prior discussion?

I think the issue here is that, unlike the software world, there is no definitive concept of what is free content and open content. In particular, open source != open content. The most popular open content licenses (the Creative Commons Public Licenses and the Open Gaming License) have no source requirements, yet are widely considered to be be "open" - in the "open source" sense - by their users.

In many ways, open source does not necesarily require that the source code be provided, it merely requires that an open source license "allows users to change and/or share the software freely." It just so happens that the method of changing software requires the source code. I think you will find many would dispute (including the Creative Commons) that the source of a document (i.e. it's preferred method of modification) is required to change it. I disagree with this, of course.

In this case, perhaps there is some argument to made for modifying the sentence (there are no set definitions of open and free content so maybe the strong assertion made by the sentence should be moderated) but I don't think it should be removed and the whole paragraph should be added back to the article. Again, any example of open content licenses that do require source would be helpful here because I have looked for them and have yet to find any, other than the GFDL (really free content). --Axon 10:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that, unlike the software world, there is no definitive concept of what is free content and open content. I see... I'll go try to decipher better the difference between open source and open content then...

In many ways, open source does not necesarily require that the source code be provided... Agreed. It is helpful, but not always mandatory. If I consider an image of an actor, I would more easily modify the original one on photoshop, but I could just as well from a printed version add a moustache, then scan it for diffusion. Changing software basically required having the source code, participating to Wikipedia is easier when we have access to the edit window, but we could copy the content entirely with no loss.

However, I tend to understand more open content as a way the user has to "see" what was done to achieve a creation. More like a system insurring transparency in the production. Much more than "allow to change or share". I would be curious to know how much people rather support the "allow to change" compared to the "show people how it is done".

In this case, perhaps there is some argument to made for modifying the sentence... Well, if you put back the content as is in the article, it should be accompanied by a paragraph explaining that others consider that it is wrong, as it is exactly in contradiction with what other wikipedia articles. So, we appear overall totally inconsistent. Would you rather propose a different phrasing then ? Because as for me, I just do not see how this sentence could be made right...:-(

I ask help from other editors to try to clear up the mess :-) Thanks Anthere

Actually, IMHO it is mandatory to have access to the source of content for a license to be considered free or even "open" (in the traditional sense). There are lots of reasons for this which I won't go into detail with here. However, in the "open content" world people genrally do not consider access to the source to be important. The emphasis is on the removal of traditional copyright restrictions.

So, to summarise, my alternative for the sentence would be: Free content licenses generally differ from open content licenses in that they require a "source" copy of the content to be provided.

I'd be interested to know in why you think the characterisation of open content is in dispute, who disputes it and what evidence you have that an alternative description of "open content" is available? Which Wikipedia articles is this article in contradiction with? And, if it is in contradiction with other wikipedia articles, what leads you to believe they are correct and this article is incorrect? --Axon 09:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know in why you think the characterisation of open content is in dispute... Why is explained above. Who is I, because it does not seem to fit well with other articles on the topic. Where is the other articles I mentionned above (basically open source, open content, free content, open source mouvement, free software mouvement etc...). And basically, this is one of the few points which when I read it, seemed not consistant with the other articles. I talked about it yesterday on irc, and I rather see agreement... and also lots of confusion :-) I actually begin to wonder what "source" is compared to "transparent source". I left a couple of questions to some friends here and there, and hope to be back on the topic this week end (will not have much free time in the next 3 days...). Alternatively, if you think the text should be back, please do, but with a disputed tag. I still do not get it at all... In my understanding, the source is mandatory in open content... :-( Anthere 05:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All the articles you mention: open source, free content, open source movement are based on software and, as indicated earlier in our discussion, should probably not be considered equivalent to open or free content. That is open source != open content! That leaves only the open content page, and again I would put the question to you: why would you assume primacy of the open content page over this one?

AFAIK there are no open content licenses that require the source be made available. Do you know of any open content licenses that do require the source be made available?

Lastly, I would also like to point out that another Wikipedia article cannot be used as evidence in another article. If you have more specific evidence from an external primary or secondary source, that would be most helpful. Similarly, editor dissent does not represent a qualitive dissent in the wider community: in other words, just because you disagree with a definition or something in a Wikipedia article is not evidence of a substantial disagreement outside of Wikipedia.

The the "transparent source" refers to the Transparency clause in the GNU Free Documentation License. Requiring the source of a document merely means you must supply the "preferred format for modification", as in the GPL. For example, if you are writing a document in MS Word and distributing it in PDF, the source is the origianl MS Word document. However, a "transparent source" requirement not only requires that you supply a modifiable format, but that the modifiable format be in a text-based format using an open format specification that has no IP or license restrictions on it. In this case if you distributed your PDF with a license with a Transparency clause (only the GFDL has this) you could not distribute the MS Word document as the source: you would have to export the MS Word to some other format with an open format spec that can be read through a simple text editor (such as XML, HTML or text).

I will add the content back into the article. Feel free to add a dispute tag if you so wish. --Axon 09:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason for the lack of accuracy tag

Since I was not able to pinpoint where the problem is, but definitly consider the article to be problematic and non helpful as is to readers, I put an accuracy label. Please, anyone is welcome to clarify this.

1) the current free content article is just inconsistent in itself

2) the open content article is inconsistant with the free content one

The current free content article says ....

Free content licenses generally differ from open content licenses in that they require a "source" copy of the content to be provided.

Which implies ... that open content license do not mandatorily require a source copy of the code...

Further down in the free content article, you may find the following sentence

Other examples of free content licenses are some of those published by Creative Commons when commercial use and derivative works are not restricted, although they do not require a "source" copy of the license be provided.

Which is already a little bit problematic with the sentence above, since the same article claims free content license require a source copy...but that some free-content licences do not require a source copy... I already feel the reader is taken a bit lightly here.

Add to this the definition of open content on wikipedia which states

Open content, coined by analogy with "open source," describes any kind of creative work including articles, pictures, audio, and video that is published in a format that explicitly allows the copying of the information.

This seems to imply that by definition "open content" require a source copy....while the free content article seems to claim the opposite...

Anthere —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:21, 28 April 2005 (UTC)

I have no legal experience. Noted. In case :-)

That is a problem. My point is that why should we assume that one Wikipedia article is correct... Based on my own understanding of what open means... and on discussions I had with people on that topic, as well as irc talks in the past few days. Anthere 05:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More or Less ?

The first paragraph reads:

Free content (or free information) is any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content upon which no legal restriction has been placed that significantly interferes with people's freedom to use, redistribute, improve, and share the content. Importantly, when free content is modified, expanded, or incorporated within another work, the resulting work must be legally distributable, either just as freely as or under more restrictive terms than the original.

Isn't less meant instead of more? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.238.239 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] oh my goodness

I am a new use / contributor, and I came to this page to get directions how to upload a picture for use in a biography. The picture is on the website I make for my organization; we would be happy to let the world see it, to let Wikipedia use it etc. It has no restrictions. But the more I read your instructions, the more confused I am. I have NO IDEA now how to upload it correctly and label it as free or .... well ... or whatever. I am going to go ahead and upload the picture, but I suppose I will do it wrong ... my apologies, but the more you explained, the worse it got - help?! Shulae —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About IANG license

It is written that "the IANG license doesn't comply with the definition of free content given here since it put many restrictions on the way you can redistribute the product". I think on the contrary that these are not restrictions, but additional freedoms for users and customers, since they are free to access the bookkeeping, and to participate in economic decisions, including selling prices. These are restrictions in the same sense as copyleft is a restriction to give the source code and to let people change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.246.124.116 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Sorry, I am still new at this. I was just wondering what was wrong with the listed change. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joer80 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trademarks?

Is an image that is under a free copyright license considered free for WP:FUC purposes if it contains a trademark? --CTho 13:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)