Slashdot Mirror

I would suggest providing technical articles and documentation under the OpenContent License. As for editorials and opinions, where modification isn't warranted, the tagline from the Free Software Foundation's Web site may be appropriate:

"Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved."

Of course, every need is different. Review the OPL carefully before using it, because its intentions are not applicable to every form of content out there.

the OPL is a direct descendant of the GPL, so i suppose the rather ambitious self-abbreviation is forgiveable. it has the same enforcement of hereditary freedom, the same indemnifications and the same charge-if-you must clause.

you don't have to provide source, though.

http://www.opencontent.org/opl.html

A friend of mine is working on this very thing, called the OpenContent License. Their FAQ:
1. Why do we need the OPL?

Computer software can already be made free for public consumption and improvement by distribution under one of several Free Software licenses as mentioned above. If you're developing executable code with instructional potential, please consider licensing it as "Free Software" so that it can both be a part of the Bazaar development cycle and freely accessible to everyone. Other Content (Learning Objects) such as graphics, images, sound bytes, video clips, models, lecture notes, tutorials, HOW-TO's and anything else that can be "referenced during technology supported learning" can not be released under these licenses because they are written specifically for computer software. The OpenContent License has been created to provide instructional designers and content specialists the same benefits, protections and assurances programmers gain from Free Software licenses. The OPL (pronounced "opal") is always open for comment. This version draws inspiration (and some verbiage) from the GPL and Debian's Social Contract.

2. Where did you get the idea that people would be willing to give their work away?
(I'll do my best to refrain from restating the question as "What kind of idiot would actually consider sharing? What kind of idiot would actually expect anyone else to share in return?") If you can honestly ask this question, it seems clear that you have never used the internet. What do people do on the internet more than look for information and find it? and find it available for free? Have you never looked anything up online? You may want to review the project's purpose. Although this idea may seem crazy to those entrenched in academia or higher education (or those who are just greedy), the idea of working hard and freely sharing the valuable results has been in practice for a long time, and is the essence of the Internet ethic (if you don't subscribe to these ideals, maybe you should go on somewhere else.) Richard M. Stallman played a key role early on in the Free Software movement by writing out and evangelizing the idea. He has included Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals in the GNU Manifesto. He answers questions like 'why should software be free?', 'why would anyone do all that work for free?', "won't programmers starve?', and others there. The transfer from the computer programming paradigm to that of education should be easy enough. For a better understanding of the principles underlying OpenContent's organization please read around the Free Software Foundation and Eric S. Raymond's OpenSource.org.

3. How do I get involved?
1. read the OPL
2. agree with its tenets or make suggestions
3. create Content
4. make it freely available under the OPL
5. spread the word

A friend of mine is working on this very thing, called the OpenContent License. Their FAQ:
1. Why do we need the OPL?

Computer software can already be made free for public consumption and improvement by distribution under one of several Free Software licenses as mentioned above. If you're developing executable code with instructional potential, please consider licensing it as "Free Software" so that it can both be a part of the Bazaar development cycle and freely accessible to everyone. Other Content (Learning Objects) such as graphics, images, sound bytes, video clips, models, lecture notes, tutorials, HOW-TO's and anything else that can be "referenced during technology supported learning" can not be released under these licenses because they are written specifically for computer software. The OpenContent License has been created to provide instructional designers and content specialists the same benefits, protections and assurances programmers gain from Free Software licenses. The OPL (pronounced "opal") is always open for comment. This version draws inspiration (and some verbiage) from the GPL and Debian's Social Contract.

2. Where did you get the idea that people would be willing to give their work away?
(I'll do my best to refrain from restating the question as "What kind of idiot would actually consider sharing? What kind of idiot would actually expect anyone else to share in return?") If you can honestly ask this question, it seems clear that you have never used the internet. What do people do on the internet more than look for information and find it? and find it available for free? Have you never looked anything up online? You may want to review the project's purpose. Although this idea may seem crazy to those entrenched in academia or higher education (or those who are just greedy), the idea of working hard and freely sharing the valuable results has been in practice for a long time, and is the essence of the Internet ethic (if you don't subscribe to these ideals, maybe you should go on somewhere else.) Richard M. Stallman played a key role early on in the Free Software movement by writing out and evangelizing the idea. He has included Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals in the GNU Manifesto. He answers questions like 'why should software be free?', 'why would anyone do all that work for free?', "won't programmers starve?', and others there. The transfer from the computer programming paradigm to that of education should be easy enough. For a better understanding of the principles underlying OpenContent's organization please read around the Free Software Foundation and Eric S. Raymond's OpenSource.org.

3. How do I get involved?
1. read the OPL
2. agree with its tenets or make suggestions
3. create Content
4. make it freely available under the OPL
5. spread the word

VB 6.0 Enterprise?! Ugh. Says alot about the website that ripped you off right there.

You may want to check out the Open Content License to see if it meets your needs.

While Project Gutenberg is a Good Thing, it is certainly not an example of open source applied to the world of words. A better example (the definitive example?) would be Open Content

One possible solution to the complaints about out of date or inaccurate HOW-TOs is to follow the Open Content model. With their Open Publication License, their basic goals are to have book source files open and kept in CVS. It seems like they still have some kinks in the license, but as long as I get my copy of GTK+/GNOME Application Development (Havoc Pennington) which is released under this license, I'll be happy.

David

Well, why not adopting a copyright that has been especially tailored to such documents: The Open Content Public License?

Hi, my name is Stefanus Du Toit, I'm a server developer at the WorldForge Project. For our code we use the GPL, but we found that it wasn't very applicable to Art (Music, Graphics, etc.) and "usual" text (e.g. rulesets). So, we licensed all of the non-code stuff under the OpenContent License (OPL). It is similar to the GPL (free speech type license) but concentrates on artwork and regular text. Go take a look at it, it might be just what you are looking for ;).

For graphics or text you might want to look at the OpenContent License (OPL).

For free software licenses see the Debian GNU/Linux Waht does free mean? page which lists all the commen licenses.

On the other hand, the open content license could apply to the material on this site, but I seriously doubt that Gore would want to do that.

http://www.opencontent.org/

(Last I checked anyway - can't seem to get to it today)

But wouldn't the opencontent license be more appropriate for the data? I mean, there's no binary and whatnot that the GPL referrs to.

Thanks again.

mindlace