Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!
Editing Open Knowledge Definition
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* Are there freedoms which are granted by one, but not the other? | * Are there freedoms which are granted by one, but not the other? | ||
* Which name should be used? "Free Content and Open Knowledge Definition" has been suggested. | * Which name should be used? "Free Content and Open Knowledge Definition" has been suggested. | ||
* | * ... | ||
== The name == | == The name == | ||
It has been suggested that a name like "Free Content and Open Knowledge Definition" is used. There are arguments in favor and against such a name change | It has been suggested that a name like "Free Content and Open Knowledge Definition" is used. There are arguments in favor and against such a name change. | ||
One argument against it is that we would have to drop the "Free Expression" bit, which is currently a way to reach out to artists who may not like the term "content". | One argument against it is that we would have to drop the "Free Expression" bit, which is currently a way to reach out to artists who may not like the term "content". | ||
A common argument in favor of "open" is that it is less ambiguous. However, as the OKFN web site itself [http://www.okfn.org/three_meanings_of_open.html points out], there are different meanings of "open", just like there are different meanings of "free" | A common argument in favor of "open" is that it is less ambiguous. However, as the OKFN web site itself [http://www.okfn.org/three_meanings_of_open.html points out], there are different meanings of "open", just like there are different meanings of "free". It also seems to be true that the word "open" is easier to dilute than the word "free". While ambiguous when unexplained, once defined, "free" is fairly uncompromising in its meaning. Both the terms "open access" and "open content" have become highly diluted, while "free content" has pretty much held its current meaning even without an official definition, simply because of the strength of the existing connotations of freedom, and its association with the movement that believes strongly in these principles. | ||
One could argue, of course, that the strength of the one depends on the weakness of the other. "Free software" might have been diluted by the same people who prefer to use "open source". | One could argue, of course, that the strength of the one depends on the weakness of the other. "Free software" might have been diluted by the same people who prefer to use "open source". |