Anthere wrote:
On wikipedia [[free content]], there is the following
paragraph :
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.
It is my feeling that the following point stating that free content
licenses differ from open content licenses for the reason free content
licenses require a "source" copy of the content, while open content
license do not require such a "source" copy
... is making me feel very unconfortable.
This seems to be a pretty accurate summary of the current positions as
far as I can tell.
The "free" side, principally the FSF, proposes (and writes into their
licenses) that source must be available, whch is explicitly specified in
their "free software definition" and implemented analogously in their
non-software licenses.
The "open" side, such as the Creative Commons, does not have any
requirements at all about source. For example, if Wikipedia were
licensed under the cc-by-sa license, I could produce a modified version
and publish it in print, and refuse to provide you any sort of
electronically-readable source at all, let alone the modified wikitext.
All I'd have to do is give you permission to reuse it---it'd be up to
you to scan it in and OCR it and etc. Since Wikipedia's under the GFDL,
we can require people who publish derivative copies of Wikipedia to give
us their electronic source, not just the physical paper book.
-Mark