[wos] Re: panel clusters

[Erik Moeller]

Am Montag, den 03.07.2006, 13:01 +0200 schrieb Volker Grassmuck:
> because content = "culture" implies that software, tools, rules, 
> economy are not culture. A replacement for "content" would be very 
> welcome. We talked about this before. Maybe in the end we have to 
> decide which is the least bad compromise, content or culture.

I don't seem to have the previous message in this thread, but I'd like
to jump in quickly. I believe that the reasoning about terminology has
so far been dominated by the FSF-style thinking that certain words are
"good" and other words are "bad." For instance, RMS argues that
"content" is a "word to avoid" because it suggests that works are "an
interchangeable commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make
money" [1].

I disagree with that reasoning. Our real problem, I believe, is not one
of "free" vs. "open", or "content" vs. "culture". Our real problem is
one of definitions, and using the right terms in the right context.

Lessig defines "Free Culture" as a broad and inclusive movement -- not
surprisingly, since he wants all of Creative Commons to be covered by
it. At http://freedomdefined.org/ , we have tried to define "Free
Content" in similar ways to "Free Software", requiring, for instance,
the right to use the content commercially.

Similarly, while "Open Source" has a very solid and limited definition,
"Open Access" is a very vague term that seems to apply even to "free
download" content under traditional licensing.

If, in the context of WOS, you want to appeal to a broad movement as
defined by Lessig, by all means use the term "Free Culture". If you want
to refer specifically to content under very permissive licenses, terms
like "Free Software" or "Free Content" are preferable.

Erik

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html