Yes, and that's a sensible approach. But I suspect most non-technical users would just take the "easy" option of the all-in-one Google package, rather than trying to do it themselves.
I read Russian up to a certain point, but gave the Google Translate version so as not to impose any of my own misunderstandings.
This is part of a larger story about Russia moving to free (as in freedom) software in its schools. I gave a link in the article to an earlier post I'd written, with more information. That, in turn, linked to some good background details elsewhere.
It's not just about budget-cutting.
Well, I suppose it comes down to detailed interpretation of words. What I meant (and thought I conveyed) was that the strength and utility of open content is that it should be re-used - but, as I added immediately afterwards, respecting the original licence (in this case the GFDL), and giving full attribution (through links).
If that wasn't clear, I'm sorry. Maybe I could have honed that paragraph a couple more times, but by their very natures, blogs are much more rough and ready compared, say, to books. It's the price you pay for their immediacy, maybe.
What, you mean it's under something like the, er, GFDL that I refer to in the link in the parent post? Where I suggest that if the newspaper article had been available under the GNU Free Documentation License, with a link or two, everything would have been fine. That one...?
(Forgive me if I don't give a quick response to heavy philosophical issues like whether I'm really that Glyn Moody: I need to go away and think about it for a while.)
I imagine it's partly a function of physical space in the newspaper - you know, that old dead-tree thing. Of course, for online newspapers, this isn't a problem. So your suggestion is probably more likely to catch on there.
This is, of course, precisely how open content like Wikipedia is meant to be used. Maybe the newspaper as well as the journalist has a thing or two to learn.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and that's a sensible approach. But I suspect most non-technical users would just take the "easy" option of the all-in-one Google package, rather than trying to do it themselves.
Yes, but what about a $20 netbook? That's the issue: when hardware costs fall to the point that the numbers work, what happens then?
I read Russian up to a certain point, but gave the Google Translate version so as not to impose any of my own misunderstandings. This is part of a larger story about Russia moving to free (as in freedom) software in its schools. I gave a link in the article to an earlier post I'd written, with more information. That, in turn, linked to some good background details elsewhere. It's not just about budget-cutting.
If that wasn't clear, I'm sorry. Maybe I could have honed that paragraph a couple more times, but by their very natures, blogs are much more rough and ready compared, say, to books. It's the price you pay for their immediacy, maybe.
(Forgive me if I don't give a quick response to heavy philosophical issues like whether I'm really that Glyn Moody: I need to go away and think about it for a while.)
I imagine it's partly a function of physical space in the newspaper - you know, that old dead-tree thing. Of course, for online newspapers, this isn't a problem. So your suggestion is probably more likely to catch on there.
Absolutely. That's the whole point about open content - which few in the world of publishing understand yet.
Well, that's why I referred to a "thing or two" at http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2006/01/oh-irony .html
for anyone who was interested.
Certainly: that was one of the things I had in mind....
This is, of course, precisely how open content like Wikipedia is meant to be used. Maybe the newspaper as well as the journalist has a thing or two to learn.