2009/3/31 Tim Baumann <[email protected]>: [snip]
> (The OKD and the FCW definition are very similar in essence -- the two > projects have been extensive contact with the OKD being developed > slightly before the FCW definition and being slightly broader in > focus). > Regards, > > Rufus > > I partly disagree. The point of the Open Source movie definiton is the > availability of sources because film being a complex medium where many parts > can be reused in other works only if the fhe respective source (and not the > mashed-up final piece) is available (3d models, single shots, underlying > music, screenplay, etc.). While the Open knowledge definiton is suitable for > open (content) films it doesn't really require sources to be available. The > def. of free cultural works does but as I wrote in a previous posting this > def. is too demanding on the "free" part. No the definition is definitely intended to include sources: "The work must also be available in a convenient and modifiable form." If this is not clear we should add a mod to the definition or at least an explanatory note. > It isn't clear to me from the requirements listed that a new > definition is needed -- rather a guide to complying with the FCW/OKD > for filmmakers. > > Mike > > In recent years the term open source movie has become a big catchword for > everything which is somehow cc licensed (best example is this one: > http://www.archive.org/details/opensource_movies). So I felt that sth. > should be done about and since I couldn't find any def. or theoretical work > on it... I think it is great you are doing something here -- as you say clear definitions are needed (by the way: is it the case that archive.org will let you upload stuff with a CC Non-Commerical license? I thought that they restricted to CC by and by-sa but may be wrong). Rufus _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
