Talk:Open content

message: "Common content are ones licensed in the Creative Commons. They are called open content only if they are licensed as share-alike (one of the CC's options)."
Okay, first of all, I've extensively studied this subject and have never ever heard of that. Second, it contradicts an earlier statement in the introduction that public domain materials count as open content. Public domain is not share-alike. Is there really a significant group that considers "open content" to imply a share-alike license? If so, we should at least clarify this. Graue 00:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This sounds wrong. Maybe that comment was not meant to stress the copyleft aspect, but to rule out "non-commercial" and "no derivative works". Whatever the initial intention, I support fixing that paragraph. Rl 06:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently there is a project called Common Content that tries to collect as much CC-licensed stuff as it can, and I guess the name has been used as a generic term. I rewrote the paragraph, so it should be clear now. Graue 01:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common content? 

message: I'm a bit confused by the "Related topics, not open content" section note about MIT's OpenCourseWare.  It's a little contradictory to discuss OpenCourseWare in the beginning of the article and then claim that it's not an example of Open Content.
But more importantly, I think this part misrepresents the copyright status of open content.  The copyright for all non-public domain content remains with the author unless explicitly transfered or disclaimed.  This is true of open source software and of creative commons and GFDL work, too.  Open Content as CC understands it is a type of licensing, not a transfer of copyright.  From CC website: "Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright — all rights reserved — and the public domain — no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work — a 'some rights reserved' copyright."
I thought the same thing, and am glad you wrote your note.  I'm going to try and resolve these conflicts. --71.241.136.108 03:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright status and MIT OpenCourseware 

message: I'd like to propose that we need to split "Open content" into two distinct pages, with a corresponding disambiguation page. This is because "open content" has become a significant term of art in the data modeling, XML, and web services area, and this usage has essentially no overlap with the current Wikipedia 'open content' page. To confirm this, try searching the web for the terms 'open content' and 'WSDL', or 'open content' and 'schema'. --Geoffarnold—Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffarnold (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed content split 

message: I don't think the difference between the two concepts "free content" and "open content" is significant enough to merit two separate articles. I know there is some technical differences between the two. But it would be more informative to readers if the two concepts are discussed at the same place; in particular, it would be easier to do comparison or talk about the history. -- Taku (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: as you say, they're different. And therefore they have to be treated separately. DGG (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we can do them in the same place. Did you notice that the two articles contains a lot of duplication? -- Taku (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this they both are similar enough that they should be the same article.  It really is just the same concept, just rebranded with different people behind it, or should I say, people's names behind them.  Threy are also both relatively short, as well. Rustyfence (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Free content is a well-established, important subject that deserves an article, so no way should that article be merged into anything.  This article, by its own terms, describes a neologism.  I don't see anything to be served by merging the two articles.  This article is all about distinguishing it from free content, and they are clearly different but related subjects.  When two things are different but both notable and we want to distinguish one from the other, as a matter of style and organization it's best to keep the articles separate, and add a section to one or both highlighting the differences.  Wikidemo (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What is open content?  Free content has a definition at freedomdefined.org, which, while not formally recognised, is at least the basis for a definition and has some informat recognition.  I'd be worried about merging a defined topic into an undefined one. --Gronky (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Free content is an open content, but not vice versa, as I understand. That's how the article defines it and that's why the merger makes sense. There is several advantages for merging the two, but I don't want to repeat myself (you can read my initial post). Also, I don't see why notability or definiteness of the topic is an issue here. This is not AfD. No one has been arguing that free content is not non-notable or not a valid encyclopedic topic. -- Taku (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that I don't see any sources to support the view the "open content" is a concept.  To what degree does this topic exist?  It seems that it either isn't a topic at all, or it is a topic that the current editors have not yet managed to describe properly.  In either case, this is a very under-developed article (in terms of substance, not in terms of number of words) and I don't think it is currently a good target for any mergers. --Gronky (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from free content 

message: There is also a publishing company... Open Content .US - http://www.opencontent.us - How do I split this Wikipedia entry into a sub-entry for Open Content .US?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulajax (talk • contribs) 09:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to add new sub-section to Open Content entry? 

message: The citation for this claim does not include a page number and I can't find how they measure "largest", so this claim is somewhat dubious. -Qeny (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is "largest" open content project? 

message: I have made a start at clarifying this article because I agree with the comments below that 'open content', 'open access', 'open source', 'free content' and the like are easily confused. 'Open content' itself seems to be used to describe 'libre content' and 'common content' at different times.
I deleted the reference to the OPL because that's a specific licence; the rest of the article suggests that other licences can also make content open (and I agree).
It's difficult to define open content because the Open Content website describes openness as a continuum. I'm going to return to this topic, because if it's a 'continuum' then it becomes very hard to claim that Wikipedia is the largest open content anything. There are larger projects that are less open; where does open content stop if not at the same place free content and libre content stop?
I think the claim about the Royal Society is dubious; open content is not open access or sharing knowledge.
Please contact me if there's anything you'd like to discuss.
--Khuxan (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining my edits

message: * Open content (particularly in its broader contemporary form) is not an ‘alternative paradigm’ to copyright but rather permissions given by copyright holders to the general public.
* The reference to ‘open access’ in the introduction didn’t provide evidence that open content is wrongly used to describe ‘open access’; the FSF article linked to didn’t use the terms ‘open content’ or ‘open access’.
* Common content is no longer commonly used; I’ve removed it.
* It’s my opinion that the open-content search engine section adds nothing; feel free to edit it back in if you disagree.
--Sanglorian (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: with this 18 November 2011 edit you added the statement "Unlike open source and free content, there is no clear threshold that a work must reach to qualify as 'open content'." Open-source what? Open-source content redirects to this article, so it's an oxymoron to say or imply that open-source content is unlike itself. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi : Content under Open-source licenses, which are strictly defined. I'll edit it to make that clear. --Sanglorian (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining My Edits

message: recently, an IP-shifting  editor (138.86.119.220, A Comcast Cable account from Greeley, Colorado and 174.51.38.227, a University of Northern Colorado account in Greeley, Colorado) has been trying to insert the following unsourced material.
"By definition, it is synonymous with works in the public domain.
The very first citation in the article clearly specifies "Any changes anybody makes to it have to be clearly marked and credited, and that anything based on that content must also be under the OpenContent License". These restrictions do not exist in Public Domain works, but closely mirror those of the Gnu Public License. I have warned the IP editor about edit waring and asked him to discuss his proposed change here.  --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent attempts to insert unsourced material. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Open content. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67UwoyzbR?url=http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/Hewlett_OER_report.pdf to http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/Hewlett_OER_report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316120303/http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2010/chapters/open-content/ to http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2010/chapters/open-content/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Elaboration of power optics for laser processing heads Compar1983 (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elaboration of power optics for laser processing heads 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Free content which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress