Talk:Open content
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] various comments
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. 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] copyright status and MIT OpenCourseware
I'm a bit confused by the "Related topics, not open content" section note about MIT's OpenCourseWare. It's a little contradictory to discuss OpenCourseWare in the beginning of the article and then claim that it's not an example of Open Content. But more importantly, I think this part misrepresents the copyright status of open content. The copyright for all non-public domain content remains with the author unless explicitly transfered or disclaimed. This is true of open source software and of creative commons and GFDL work, too. Open Content as CC understands it is a type of licensing, not a transfer of copyright. From CC website: "Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright — all rights reserved — and the public domain — no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work — a 'some rights reserved' copyright."
I thought the same thing, and am glad you wrote your note. I'm going to try and resolve these conflicts. --71.241.136.108 03:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] math factors and prime factorization
68.53.157.147 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Headline text
[edit] homwork andpractice workbook factors and prime factorization
68.53.157.147 22:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Headline text
[edit] External links section way too huge
Wikipedia isn't a search engine or a directory, why are there so many links? I deleted some, but that list should recieve even more trimming. Fatalis 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] which
perhaps it would be useful if you listed here what you proposed to trim. -- there are only 13 there now, which by WP standards isnt exactly huge. The size is however irrelevant--the question is the importance of the content.
-
- I have just re-examined the list, and they are all in my opinion significant, though some should be integrated into the main article.
- As for OER Commons, though I wasn't familiar with it, they do seem to be an important project with important sponsors--the possibly would deserve an article., as might some of the others. But I had problems reaching Open Content Initiative. DGG 19:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Since it is WP policy on links that external links not be given for places that have a WP article on them, I have removed those--the idea is that people will go the the WP articles first. Possibly some of the remaining projects deserve articles as well. DGG 22:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
