Talk:Free content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject Open Access (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Free content is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Open (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Free content is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Now with additional MainPage[edit]

This article is linked from the main page. ffm 19:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Owing to the increased vandalism on this page, I have added it to Cluebot's "angry" mode page. User A1 (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Upload imag[edit]

my account is blocked an i cannot upload a copyrighted bmp. who can put up an infrigment word for user:tide rolls to deblock me ?file:signature icon.png188.25.53.192 (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi protection[edit]

I proposed semi-protection for this article, but it was declined, quoting WP:NOPRO. See request and decline diffs. Personally I only think this should apply to featured content, and "anyone can edit" links. User A1 (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The misplaced editing is fairly light and it appears to be more new, lost editors than vandalism. Hopefully my comments to the article will help. It makes the article a little clunky to edit for experienced editors, but it's better than reverting so often. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this page requires semi-protection too. It seems to be victim of heavy misplaced editing, not just light. Users will be able to edit this page once they know what they are doing anyway. Gogo Dodo´s comment didn´t help it seems. Ren 03:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
How bad would it look if the article on Free content was protected? Esp since there is a link to this article from the main page promoting Wikipedia as containing free content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.173.3 (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Not too concerned: One click reverts seem to take care of what goes on here. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This was more of a problem when there was only myself and (if i recall correctly) lonleymarble watching this page over a year ago. Since then we have had a lot more people watching and reverting. User A1 (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-references[edit]

This page has too many self-references, in my opinion. One at the top of the page is acceptable, one for every major section is not. I think all the self-refs should be removed and replaced by a single reference to Wikipedia:Copyrights, or another page (which could be created anew). Superm401 - Talk 08:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the self referencing either... User A1 (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I moved all the self-references to the external links section. A self-reference at the top of the copyright article may be necessary, but they aren't that necessary in this article. LonelyMarble (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Free use v Fair use - public court records on Wikipedia[edit]

God talks about Free use v Fair use, and 'Free use' links to this page. I'm trying to discern whether this (later reverted) edit of mine was appropriate. ISTM that court documents such as transcripts, depositions, exhibits, discovery, and briefs are usable as a right that is at least in some cases both stronger than 'fair use', and weaker than 'free use', e.g. transcripts are probably most free, and discovery the least free of the set. FYI: This distinct but related edit has been allowed to stand, thus far. Relevant. I'm actually leaning toward thinking my edit was erroneous, and generally, such court documents are usable simply under fair use. And yet there is a movement toward having wikipedia, or forks thereof, include only material available for free use, i.e. exclude materiable usable only under fair use doctrine, and I feel that such projects would want to include the public court documents I'm concerned about, if only they could identify it, such as by use of a tag disparate from the fair use tag.

With respect to public records, Florida must allow access pursuant to Florida law, without further restriction; Florida "has no authority to assert copyright protection" over public records (with a few narrow exceptions), per Florida's public records law, section 119.07, Florida Statutes, but NY law is different. (Cited/Supported [ http://www.2dca.org/opinion/December%2001,%202004/2D03-3346.pdf here].) (Wikipedia is still based in FL?) --Elvey (talk) 10 February 2009

I'm not clear what this has to do with this article -- This seems like a WP policy issue, and not particularly in my demesne. You may want to take this to somewhere in the WP namespace -- you could start at the village pump? User A1 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is (partly) about the legal issues regarding which I am seeking clarity, and this page is relatively likely to be visited by editors with the requisite expertise and creative minds. I'm sorry if I've made you feel resentful of the intrusion. Thanks for the advice. I just made this draft.--Elvey (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Free and Open content[edit]

What is difference between free content and open content? Saqib talk 08:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqib Qayyum (talkcontribs)

It is different nomenclature, but hopefully they mean the same thing. The term "Open" has sometimes been used to distinguish the concept of free as in price from free as in the ability to use the content as you see fit (for free). If you feel this needs to be clearer in the article, please feel free (open?) to edit the article.User A1 (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
And how about a website, which use either GNU license or CC-SA for its content? Open or Free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.5.238 (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but maybe Free content website. Or is it depends on type of content? --Saqib talk 10:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqib Qayyum (talkcontribs)

Libre content[edit]

Libre has been used synonymously with Free as in freedom (the meaning of free which applies in this article on free content). Some would prefer to say "libre content"[1] to distinguish it from content that is available for free (gratis). Please consider adding the word "libre" to the text of this article (e.g. "Free/libre content, or free/libre information ..."). Thanks. - Kim Tucker (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ See for example "Say Libre". Caveat: some of the same people tend to avoid the word "content".

Abbreviation[edit]

Any source of Free content abbreviation?--Saqib talk 08:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Governance section[edit]

This section requires significant improvement with less "e-government focus" and a greater historical context. Also, ironically, many of the journals discussing free content are inaccessible, one particularly is "Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful", Brookings Press, Prof. Beth Noveck". If someone can expand this (it is not my area of expertise) that would be great. User A1 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


Wiki Don't free[edit]

Has Wikis that not is of Free need payments,more so's bad. Knuckles The Echidna (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Freebox[edit]

What on earth does a freebox have to do with free content -- can someone delete this image? 129.67.86.189 (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree and have deleted it. A freebox is gratis, not libre! --Sanglorian (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Merciless editing[edit]

I just edited this page mercilessly. Edit my own edits mercilessly. If you must tell me how, do so on my talk page. --I dream of horses (T) @ 03:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are there NEVER explanations in Wikipedia articles (about Wikipedia Image-use) on How to Actually Determine If an Image is Copyrighted Or NOT?!![edit]

Why doesn't this article, for example, EVER tell you HOW to actually find out if an image is copyrighted or not? Or if an image is fair-use or free? Or if an image is free or non-copyrighted? These pages NEVER tell you that. It's maddening.

OK-- so now I know what I can and can't use-- but HOW do I tell whether or not an Internet image is copyrighted, or has any other designation or is just free?!!

And WHY doesn't this, or any other Wikipedia image article, just spell this out clearly in an easy-to find manner?

Telemachus.forward (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

File:FSF-Logo.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:FSF-Logo.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Only three liberties mentiones[edit]

As far as I knew, in ordered for a content to be considered free, it must abide to 4 rules ( http://freedomdefined.org/Definition ). This article only lists three of them. Am I missing something?--Strainu (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Those three rules seemed to have been derived from Stallman's writing on free manuals; I've changed them to fit the definition at FreedomDefined. --Sanglorian (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Usage section confusing[edit]

The Usage section is currently confusing. It has subsections Media, Software, Engineering and technology, Academia and Governance. Although media and software and perhaps engineering and technology can be considered as types of content which may be free, academia and governance are not types of content. They may be "users" or "producers" of free content. Perhaps the section should be split in 2. --Chealer (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove "copyfree"?[edit]

If the idea ever takes off, then Wikipedia should document it then.

Now, I think Wikipedia is being abused as a stage to promote a new idea. Gronky (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, the article cited is from two years ago... you may put up a notability tag up if you like. The cited article mentions BSD and MIT as copyfree licenses. In vocabulary used by people I've met, this means "non-viral" licensing. Because you can distribute BSD/MIT-licensed derived works under a different license. As I say, put up a notability tag if you see it as a problem. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
BSD license is copyfree, its long established and is in essence "opensource software" as opposed to "freedom software". It is better to leave it as is - separate entity, otherwise the BSD zealots will backstab us, GPLers, as usual. They have own anarchy point of view and own problems, so let it be.77.180.212.77 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Are there any sources not affiliated with the copyfree initiative (and not blogs)? Currently, the two sources used are one primary sources for the copyfree.org site, and a self-published blog. If there are not any third-party sources, the section should be removed. Template was added to section to encourage such sources to be added. Belorn (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I've seen discussion forum sites (including Ludwig von Mises Institute), mailing list discussions, and TechRepublic articles mention the term. Do those count? - Apotheon (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the kind of stuff mentioned just above, I found a reference to it in an academic copyright law workshop listing [1], it's a licensing category for FreeBSD ports, Freedom Defined (free culture definition site) has at least one article that talks about (among other things) copyfree licensing [2], and for shits and giggles I'm not really sure what this is: [3]. That was just a few minutes of searching on the DuckDuckGo search engine, which also yielded a fairly large number of sites that probably wouldn't count for your requirements. - Apotheon (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Please note that there is /potentially/ a conflict of interest here as user Gronky is a member of Wikiproject Free Software and seems to have taken an interest in copyleft articles. While I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy and there /could/ be nothing in particular preventing him from editing this article in this way, I just hope that everyone else involved with this article puts his suggestions regarding removal of the copyfree section under more scrutiny to prevent the possibility of overrepresentation of copyleft information. 71.8.60.131 (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the test for free-content? - Does Wikipedia respect foreign copyrights or only US law?[edit]

This is the talk page for our 'Free content' article, and as such is the wrong place to have an RfC on a policy issue - I have collapsed the discussion accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, unnecessary to put it in a RfC. Some tries at answering the question can be found here. 9carney (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)