Talk:Free content

There is a project underway at freecontentdefinition.org to define "free content". I don't know if that definition should be added here, just linked to, or presented as one possible viewpoint on what free content is - are there others that disagree with the essential freedoms outlined there? Angela 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for such a swift response Angela :-). I'll have a look now. Also adding this note (in edit conflict with you) ;-)

Note: I originally used the title "Free content" as it was the most general title I could think of. I now realise that there is a lot more to the subject than I had thought (obviously!), an example of which is that free content and open content are not the same, nor does a free-content licence have to be copyleft. I'd like to provide for general information - perhaps on a portal (Portal:Free culture?) - but I'm happy to change the title of this to include discussion of free and open content - what does anyone think? Cormaggio 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't think names are as important as some people make them out to be. Think what matters is consequences.-luke 13:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure :-) It's just that I didn't want to restrict any ideas by naming it something that didn't encompass the general field.. Cormaggio 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Explaining the licences
The cartoon is a good tool for learning, but does an awful job in its purpose -- WHY are the licences different. Maybe we could do a short video or cartoon on _explaining the differences between different licences_. I know I've looked at the issue several times, and I can't explain all of the differences and implications that the licences entail. When open source was emerging, it was hard getting buy-in from some people, even when we knew the implications and could explain the licence. Comments? Historybuff 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)