Free content

Last updated

The logo on the screen in the subject's left hand is a Creative Commons license, while the paper in his right hand explains, in Khmer, that the image is open content Discussing Creative Commons licensing in Khmer.jpg
The logo on the screen in the subject's left hand is a Creative Commons license, while the paper in his right hand explains, in Khmer, that the image is open content

Free content, libre content, libre information, or free information is any kind of creative work, such as a work of art, a book, a software program, or any other creative content for which there are very minimal copyright and other legal limitations on usage, modification and distribution. These are works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and modified by anyone for any purpose [1] [ better source needed ] including, in some cases, commercial purposes. Free content encompasses all works in the public domain and also those copyrighted works whose licenses honor and uphold the definition of free cultural work.

Contents

In most countries, the Berne Convention grants copyright holders control over their creations by default. Therefore, copyrighted content must be explicitly declared free by the authors, which is usually accomplished by referencing or including licensing statements from within the work. The right to reuse such a work is granted by the authors in a license known as a free license, a free distribution license, or an open license, depending on the rights assigned. These freedoms given to users in the reuse of works (that is, the right to freely use, study, modify or distribute these works, possibly also for commercial purposes) are often associated with obligations (to cite the original author, to maintain the original license of the reused content) or restrictions (excluding commercial use, banning certain media) chosen by the author.[ citation needed ] There are a number of standardized licenses offering varied options that allow authors to choose the type of reuse of their work that they wish to authorize or forbid.

Definition

There are a number of different definitions of free content in regular use. Legally, however, free content is very similar to open content. An analogy is a use of the rival terms free software and open-source, which describe ideological differences rather than legal ones. [2] [ self-published source? ] The term Open Source, by contrast, sought to encompass them all in one movement. [3] [4] For instance, the Open Knowledge Foundation's Open Definition describes "open" as synonymous with the definition of free in the "Definition of Free Cultural Works" (as also in the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition). [5] For such free/open content both movements recommend the same three Creative Commons licenses, the CC BY, CC BY-SA, and CC0. [6] [7] [8] [9]

Copyright symbol Copyright.svg
Copyright symbol

Copyright is a legal concept, which gives the author or creator of a work legal control over the duplication and public performance of their work. In many jurisdictions, this is limited by a time period after which the works then enter the public domain. Copyright laws are a balance between the rights of creators of intellectual and artistic works and the rights of others to build upon those works. During the time period of copyright the author's work may only be copied, modified, or publicly performed with the consent of the author, unless the use is a fair use. Traditional copyright control limits the use of the work of the author to those who either pay royalties to the author for usage of the author's content or limit their use to fair use. Secondly, it limits the use of content whose author cannot be found. [10] Finally, it creates a perceived barrier between authors by limiting derivative works, such as mashups and collaborative content. [11] Although open content has been described as a counterbalance to copyright, open content licenses rely on a copyright holder's power to license their work, as copyleft which also utilizes copyright for such a purpose. [12]

Public domain

Public domain logo PD-icon.svg
Public domain logo

The public domain is a range of creative works whose copyright has expired or was never established, as well as ideas and facts [note 1] which are ineligible for copyright. A public domain work is a work whose author has either relinquished to the public or no longer can claim control over, the distribution and usage of the work. As such, any person may manipulate, distribute, or otherwise use the work, without legal ramifications. A work in the public domain or released under a permissive license may be referred to as "copycenter". [13]

Copyleft

Copyleft symbol Copyleft.svg
Copyleft symbol

Copyleft is a play on the word copyright and describes the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work. [14] The aim of copyleft is to use the legal framework of copyright to enable non-author parties to be able to reuse and, in many licensing schemes, modify content that is created by an author. Unlike works in the public domain, the author still maintains copyright over the material, however, the author has granted a non-exclusive license to any person to distribute, and often modify, the work. Copyleft licenses require that any derivative works be distributed under the same terms and that the original copyright notices be maintained. A symbol commonly associated with copyleft is a reversal of the copyright symbol, facing the other way; the opening of the C points left rather than right. Unlike the copyright symbol, the copyleft symbol does not have a codified meaning. [15]

Usage

Projects that provide free content exist in several areas of interest, such as software, academic literature, general literature, music, images, video, and engineering. Technology has reduced the cost of publication and reduced the entry barrier sufficiently to allow for the production of widely disseminated materials by individuals or small groups. Projects to provide free literature and multimedia content have become increasingly prominent owing to the ease of dissemination of materials that are associated with the development of computer technology. Such dissemination may have been too costly prior to these technological developments.

Media

Creative Commons logo Cc.logo.circle.svg
Creative Commons logo

In media, which includes textual, audio, and visual content, free licensing schemes such as some of the licenses made by Creative Commons have allowed for the dissemination of works under a clear set of legal permissions. Not all Creative Commons licenses are entirely free; their permissions may range from very liberal general redistribution and modification of the work to a more restrictive redistribution-only licensing. Since February 2008, Creative Commons licenses which are entirely free carry a badge indicating that they are "approved for free cultural works". [16] Repositories exist which exclusively feature free material and provide content such as photographs, clip art, music, [17] and literature. [18] While extensive reuse of free content from one website in another website is legal, it is usually not sensible because of the duplicate content problem. Wikipedia is amongst the most well-known databases of user-uploaded free content on the web. While the vast majority of content on Wikipedia is free content, some copyrighted material is hosted under fair-use criteria.

Software

OSI logo Open Source Initiative.svg
OSI logo

Free and open-source software, which is often referred to as open source software and free software, is a maturing technology with companies using them to provide services and technology to both end-users and technical consumers. The ease of dissemination increases modularity, which allows for smaller groups to contribute to projects as well as simplifying collaboration. Some claim that open source development models offer similar peer-recognition and collaborative benefit incentive as in more classical fields such as scientific research, with the social structures that result leading to decreased production costs. [19]

Free Software Foundation logo FSF-Logo part.svg
Free Software Foundation logo

Given sufficient interest in a software component, by using peer-to-peer distribution methods, distribution costs may be reduced, easing the burden of infrastructure maintenance on developers. As distribution is simultaneously provided by consumers, these software distribution models are scalable; that is, the method is feasible regardless of the number of consumers. In some cases, free software vendors may use peer-to-peer technology as a method of dissemination. [20] Project hosting and code distribution is not a problem for most free projects as a number of providers offer these services free of charge.

Engineering and technology

Logo of the Open Source Hardware Association Open Source Hardware Association logo.svg
Logo of the Open Source Hardware Association

Free content principles have been translated into fields such as engineering, where designs and engineering knowledge can be readily shared and duplicated, in order to reduce overheads associated with project development. Open design principles can be applied in engineering and technological applications, with projects in mobile telephony, small-scale manufacture, [21] the automotive industry, [22] [23] and even agricultural areas. Technologies such as distributed manufacturing can allow computer-aided manufacturing and computer-aided design techniques to be able to develop small-scale production of components for the development of new, or repair of existing, devices. Rapid fabrication technologies underpin these developments, which allow end-users of technology to be able to construct devices from pre-existing blueprints, using software and manufacturing hardware to convert information into physical objects.

Academia

In academic work, the majority of works are not free, although the percentage of works that are open access is growing. Open access refers to online research outputs that are free of all restrictions to access and free of many restrictions on use (e.g. certain copyright and license restrictions). [24] Authors may see open access publishing as a way of expanding the audience that is able to access their work to allow for greater impact, or support it for ideological reasons. [25] [26] Open access publishers such as PLOS and BioMed Central provide capacity for review and publishing of free works; such publications are currently more common in science than humanities. Various funding institutions and governing research bodies have mandated that academics must produce their works to be open-access, in order to qualify for funding, such as the US National Institutes of Health, Research Councils UK (effective 2016) and the European Union (effective 2020). [27] [28] [29]

Open access symbol, originally designed by PLOS Open Access logo PLoS white.svg
Open access symbol, originally designed by PLOS

At an institutional level, some universities, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have adopted open access publishing by default by introducing their own mandates. [30] Some mandates may permit delayed publication and may charge researchers for open access publishing. [31] [32] For teaching purposes, some universities, including MIT, provide freely available course content, such as lecture notes, video resources and tutorials. This content is distributed via Internet to the general public. Publication of such resources may be either by a formal institution-wide program, [33] or informally, by individual academics or departments.

Open content publication has been seen as a method of reducing costs associated with information retrieval in research, as universities typically pay to subscribe for access to content that is published through traditional means. [9] [34] Subscriptions for non-free content journals may be expensive for universities to purchase, though the articles are written and peer-reviewed by academics themselves at no cost to the publisher. This has led to disputes between publishers and some universities over subscription costs, such as the one that occurred between the University of California and the Nature Publishing Group. [35] [36]

Education

Unesco's Open Educational Resources logo Global Open Educational Resources Logo.svg
Unesco's Open Educational Resources logo

Free and open content has been used to develop alternative routes towards higher education. Open content is a free way of obtaining higher education that is "focused on collective knowledge and the sharing and reuse of learning and scholarly content." [37] There are multiple projects and organizations that promote learning through open content, including OpenCourseWare and Khan Academy. Some universities, like MIT, Yale, and Tufts are making their courses freely available on the internet. [38]

There are also a number of organizations promoting the creation of openly licensed textbooks such as the University of Minnesota's Open Textbook Library, Connexions, OpenStax College, the Saylor Academy, Open Textbook Challenge, and Wikibooks.[ citation needed ]

Legislation

Any country has its own law and legal system, sustained by its legislation, which consists of documents. In a democratic country, laws are published as open content, in principle free content; but in general, there are no explicit licenses attributed for the text of each law, so the license must be assumed as an implied license . Only a few countries have explicit licenses in their law-documents, as the UK's Open Government Licence (a CC BY compatible license). In the other countries, the implied license comes from its proper rules (general laws and rules about copyright in government works). The automatic protection provided by the Berne Convention does not apply to the texts of laws: Article 2.4 excludes the official texts from the automatic protection. It is also possible to "inherit" the license from context. The set of country's law-documents is made available through national repositories. Examples of law-document open repositories: LexML Brazil, Legislation.gov.uk, and N-Lex. In general, a law-document is offered in more than one (open) official version, but the main one is that published by a government gazette. So, law-documents can eventually inherit license expressed by the repository or by the gazette that contains it.

History

Origins and Open Content Project

The concept of applying free software licenses to content was introduced by Michael Stutz, who in 1997 wrote the paper "Applying Copyleft to Non-Software Information" for the GNU Project. [39] The term "open content" was coined by David A. Wiley in 1998 and evangelized via the Open Content Project, describing works licensed under the Open Content License (a non-free share-alike license, see 'Free content' below) and other works licensed under similar terms. [40]

The website of the Open Content Project once defined open content as 'freely available for modification, use and redistribution under a license similar to those used by the open-source / free software community'. [40] However, such a definition would exclude the Open Content License because that license forbids charging for content; a right required by free and open-source software licenses.[ citation needed ]

5Rs definition

Open Content Project logo, 1998 Open content norm.svg
Open Content Project logo, 1998

It has since come to describe a broader class of content without conventional copyright restrictions. The openness of content can be assessed under the '5Rs Framework' based on the extent to which it can be retained, reused, revised, remixed and redistributed by members of the public without violating copyright law. [41] Unlike free content and content under open-source licenses, there is no clear threshold that a work must reach to qualify as 'open content'.

The 5Rs are put forward on the Open Content Project website as a framework for assessing the extent to which content is open:

  1. Retain – the right to make, own, and control copies of the content (e.g., download, duplicate, store, and manage)
  2. Reuse – the right to use the content in a wide range of ways (e.g., in a class, in a study group, on a website, in a video)
  3. Revise – the right to adapt, adjust, modify, or alter the content itself (e.g., translate the content into another language)
  4. Remix – the right to combine the original or revised content with other open content to create something new (e.g., incorporate the content into a mashup)
  5. Redistribute – the right to share copies of the original content, your revisions, or your remixes with others (e.g., give a copy of the content to a friend) [41]

This broader definition distinguishes open content from open-source software, since the latter must be available for commercial use by the public. However, it is similar to several definitions for open educational resources, which include resources under noncommercial and verbatim licenses. [42] [43]

Successor projects

In 2003, David Wiley announced that the Open Content Project had been succeeded by Creative Commons and their licenses; Wiley joined as "Director of Educational Licenses". [44] [45]

In 2005, the Open Icecat project was launched, in which product information for e-commerce applications was created and published under the Open Content License. It was embraced by the tech sector, which was already quite open source minded.

In 2006, a Creative Commons' successor project, the Definition of Free Cultural Works, was introduced for free content. [46] It was put forth by Erik Möller, Richard Stallman, Lawrence Lessig, Benjamin Mako Hill, Angela Beesley, and others. [47] The Definition of Free Cultural Works is used by the Wikimedia Foundation. [48] In 2009, the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons licenses were marked as "Approved for Free Cultural Works". [49]

Open Knowledge Foundation

Open Knowledge Foundation OK LOGO COLOUR RGB.svg
Open Knowledge Foundation

Another successor project is the Open Knowledge Foundation, founded by Rufus Pollock in Cambridge, in 2004 [50] as a global non-profit network to promote and share open content and data. [51]

In 2007 the OKF gave an Open Knowledge Definition for "content such as music, films, books; data be it scientific, historical, geographic or otherwise; government and other administrative information". [52] In October 2014 with version 2.0 Open Works and Open Licenses were defined and "open" is described as synonymous to the definitions of open/free in the Open Source Definition, the Free Software Definition, and the Definition of Free Cultural Works. [53]

A distinct difference is the focus given to the public domain, open access, and readable open formats. OKF recommends six conformant licenses: three of OKN's (Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and Licence, Open Data Commons Attribution License, Open Data Commons Open Database License) and the CC BY, CC BY-SA, and CC0 Creative Commons licenses. [54] [55] [56]

See also

Explanatory notes

  1. ↑ The copyright status of uncreative aggregates of basic data may differ by region—for the US see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service ; for Australia, see Telstra v Desktop Marketing Systems .

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free software</span> Software licensed to be freely used, modified and distributed

Free software, libre software, libreware or rarely known as freedom-respecting software is computer software distributed under terms that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions. Free software is a matter of liberty, not price; all users are legally free to do what they want with their copies of a free software regardless of how much is paid to obtain the program. Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give end-users ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their devices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open-source license</span> Software license allowing source code to be used, modified, and shared

Open-source licenses are software licenses that allow content to be used, modified, and shared. They facilitate free and open-source software (FOSS) development. Intellectual property (IP) laws restrict the modification and sharing of creative works. Free and open-source licenses use these existing legal structures for an inverse purpose. They grant the recipient the rights to use the software, examine the source code, modify it, and distribute the modifications. These criteria are outlined in the Open Source Definition.

The Open Source Definition (OSD) is a document published by the Open Source Initiative. Derived from Bruce Perens' Debian Free Software Guidelines, the definition is the most common standard for open-source software. The definition has ten criteria, such as requiring freely accessed source code and granting the open-source rights to everyone who receives a copy of the program. Covering both copyleft and permissive licenses, it is effectively identical to the definition of free software, but motivated by more pragmatic and business-friendly considerations. The Open Source Initiative's board votes on proposals of licenses to certify that they are compliant with the definition, and maintains a list of compliant licenses on its website. The definition has been adapted into the Open Knowledge Foundation's Open Definition for open knowledge and into open hardware definitions.

Creative Commons (CC) is an American non-profit organization and international network devoted to educational access and expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share. The organization has released several copyright licenses, known as Creative Commons licenses, free of charge to the public. These licenses allow authors of creative works to communicate which rights they reserve and which rights they waive for the benefit of recipients or other creators. An easy-to-understand one-page explanation of rights, with associated visual symbols, explains the specifics of each Creative Commons license. Content owners still maintain their copyright, but Creative Commons licenses give standard releases that replace the individual negotiations for specific rights between copyright owner (licensor) and licensee, that are necessary under an "all rights reserved" copyright management.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creative Commons license</span> Copyright license for free use of a work

A Creative Commons (CC) license is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted "work". A CC license is used when an author wants to give other people the right to share, use, and build upon a work that the author has created. CC provides an author flexibility and protects the people who use or redistribute an author's work from concerns of copyright infringement as long as they abide by the conditions that are specified in the license by which the author distributes the work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free Art License</span> Type of free content license

The Free Art License (FAL) is a copyleft license that grants the right to freely copy, distribute, and transform creative works except for computer hardware and software, including for commercial use.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Software license</span> Governs the use and/or redistribution of software

A software license is a legal instrument governing the use or redistribution of software.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Share-alike</span> Condition in some free copyright licenses

Share-alike (🄎) is a copyright licensing term, originally used by the Creative Commons project, to describe works or licenses that require copies or adaptations of the work to be released under the same or similar license as the original. Copyleft licenses are free content or free software licenses with a share-alike condition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free-culture movement</span> Social movement promoting the freedom to distribute and modify the creative works of others

The free-culture movement is a social movement that promotes the freedom to distribute and modify the creative works of others in the form of free content or open content without compensation to, or the consent of, the work's original creators, by using the Internet and other forms of media.

Open-source religions employ open-source methods for the sharing, construction, and adaptation of religious belief systems, content, and practice. In comparison to religions utilizing proprietary, authoritarian, hierarchical, and change-resistant structures, open-source religions emphasize sharing in a cultural Commons, participation, self-determination, decentralization, and evolution. They apply principles used in organizing communities developing open-source software for organizing group efforts innovating with human culture. New open-source religions may develop their rituals, praxes, or systems of beliefs through a continuous process of refinement and dialogue among participating practitioners. Organizers and participants often see themselves as part of a more generalized open-source and free-culture movement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open Source Judaism</span>

Open-source Judaism is a name given to initiatives within the Jewish community employing open content and open-source licensing strategies for collaboratively creating and sharing works about or inspired by Judaism. Open-source efforts in Judaism utilize licensing strategies by which contemporary products of Jewish culture under copyright may be adopted, adapted, and redistributed with credit and attribution accorded to the creators of these works. Often collaborative, these efforts are comparable to those of other open-source religious initiatives inspired by the free culture movement to openly share and broadly disseminate seminal texts and techniques under the aegis of copyright law. Combined, these initiatives describe an open-source movement in Judaism that values correct attribution of sources, creative sharing in an intellectual commons, adaptable future-proof technologies, open technological standards, open access to primary and secondary sources and their translations, and personal autonomy in the study and craft of works of Torah.

License compatibility is a legal framework that allows for pieces of software with different software licenses to be distributed together. The need for such a framework arises because the different licenses can contain contradictory requirements, rendering it impossible to legally combine source code from separately-licensed software in order to create and publish a new program. Proprietary licenses are generally program-specific and incompatible; authors must negotiate to combine code. Copyleft licenses are commonly deliberately incompatible with proprietary licenses, in order to prevent copyleft software from being re-licensed under a proprietary license, turning it into proprietary software. Many copyleft licenses explicitly allow relicensing under some other copyleft licenses. Permissive licenses are compatible with everything, including proprietary licenses; there is thus no guarantee that all derived works will remain under a permissive license.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free-software license</span> License allowing software modification and redistribution

A free-software license is a notice that grants the recipient of a piece of software extensive rights to modify and redistribute that software. These actions are usually prohibited by copyright law, but the rights-holder of a piece of software can remove these restrictions by accompanying the software with a software license which grants the recipient these rights. Software using such a license is free software as conferred by the copyright holder. Free-software licenses are applied to software in source code and also binary object-code form, as the copyright law recognizes both forms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyleft</span> Practice of mandating free use in all derivatives of a work

Copyleft is the legal technique of granting certain freedoms over copies of copyrighted works with the requirement that the same rights be preserved in derivative works. In this sense, freedoms refers to the use of the work for any purpose, and the ability to modify, copy, share, and redistribute the work, with or without a fee. Licenses which implement copyleft can be used to maintain copyright conditions for works ranging from computer software, to documents, art, and scientific discoveries, and similar approaches have even been applied to certain patents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">GNU Free Documentation License</span> Copyleft license primarily for free software documentation

The GNU Free Documentation License is a copyleft license for free documentation, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU Project. It is similar to the GNU General Public License, giving readers the rights to copy, redistribute, and modify a work and requires all copies and derivatives to be available under the same license. Copies may also be sold commercially, but, if produced in larger quantities, the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Definition of Free Cultural Works</span> Project to define free content

The Definition of Free Cultural Works evaluates and recommends compatible free content licenses.

A free license or open license is a license that allows copyrighted work to be reused, modified, and redistributed. These uses are normally prohibited by copyright, patent or other Intellectual property (IP) laws. The term broadly covers free content licenses and open-source licenses, also known as free software licenses.

A public license or public copyright license is a license by which a copyright holder as licensor can grant additional copyright permissions to any and all persons in the general public as licensees. By applying a public license to a work, provided that the licensees obey the terms and conditions of the license, copyright holders give permission for others to copy or change their work in ways that would otherwise infringe copyright law.

The Open Definition is published by the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) to define openness for any type of data, content, or other knowledge. The definition's stated purpose is to "[make] precise the meaning of ‘open’ with respect to knowledge". Although it draws philosophically from both the open-source and free software movements, the Open Definition prioritizes license compatibility over copyleft principles requiring derivative works to be released under a free license. The Open Definition contains requirements for content licenses to be considered open licenses, and the OKF maintains a list of compatible licenses. The definition also requires open access, machine readability, and the use of open formats. The OKF's Open Software Service Definition is derived from the Open Definition.

References

  1. ↑ Erik Möller; et al. (2008). "Definition of Free Cultural Works". 1.1. freedomdefined.org. Archived from the original on 18 August 2016. Retrieved 20 April 2015.{{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  2. ↑ Stallman, Richard. "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software". Free Software Foundation. Archived from the original on 4 August 2011. Retrieved 5 August 2016.
  3. ↑ Kelty, Christopher M. (2008). "The Cultural Significance of Free Software – Two Bits" (PDF). Durham and London: Duke University Press. p. 99. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 August 2008. Retrieved 5 August 2016. Prior to 1998, Free Software referred either to the Free Software Foundation (and the watchful, micromanaging eye of Stallman) or to one of thousands of different commercial, avocational, or university-research projects, processes, licenses, and ideologies that had a variety of names: sourceware, freeware, shareware, open software, public domain software, and so on
  4. ↑ "Goodbye, "free software"; hello, "open source"". Catb.org. Archived from the original on 2 January 2020. Retrieved 25 October 2012.
  5. ↑ Open Definition 2.1 Archived 27 January 2017 at the Wayback Machine on opendefinition.org "This essential meaning matches that of "open" with respect to software as in the Open Source Definition and is synonymous with "free" or "libre" as in the Free Software Definition and Definition of Free Cultural Works."
  6. ↑ licenses Archived 1 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine on opendefinition.com
  7. ↑ Creative Commons 4.0 BY and BY-SA licenses approved conformant with the Open Definition Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine by Timothy Vollmer on creativecommons.org (December 27th, 2013)
  8. ↑ Open Definition 2.0 released Archived 24 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine by Timothy Vollmer on creativecommons.org (October 7th, 2014)
  9. 1 2 "Costs and business models in scientific research publishing: A report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 February 2009. Retrieved 23 May 2009.
  10. ↑ "The Importance of Orphan Works Legislation". Archived from the original on 5 January 2010. Retrieved 13 June 2011.
  11. ↑ Ben Depoorter; Francesco Parisi (2002). "Fair use and copyright protection: a price theory explanation". International Review of Law and Economics. 21 (4): 453. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.196.423 . doi:10.1016/S0144-8188(01)00071-0. ISSN   0144-8188.
  12. ↑ Liang, Lawrence (2007). "Free/Open Source Software Open Content" (PDF). Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme: e-Primers on Free/Open Source Software. United Nations Development Programme – Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 March 2012. Retrieved 23 June 2012.
  13. ↑ Raymond, Eric S. "Copycenter". The Jargon File. Archived from the original on 16 September 2010. Retrieved 9 August 2008.
  14. ↑ Dusollier, S (2003). "Open source and copyleft. Authorship reconsidered?". Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts. 26 (296).
  15. ↑ Hall, G. Brent (2008). Open Source Approaches in Spatial Data Handling. Springer. p. 29. Bibcode:2008osas.book.....H. ISBN   978-3-540-74830-4. Archived from the original on 21 March 2022. Retrieved 22 March 2009.
  16. ↑ Linksvayer, Mike (20 February 2008). "Approved for Free Cultural Works". Creative Commons. Archived from the original on 17 November 2015. Retrieved 22 March 2009.
  17. ↑ "iRate Radio". SourceForge.net. Archived from the original on 28 February 2009. Retrieved 22 March 2009.
  18. ↑ "Gutenberg:No Cost or Freedom?". Project Gutenberg. 23 April 2007. Archived from the original on 24 March 2009. Retrieved 22 March 2009.
  19. ↑ Mustonen, Mikko. "Copyleft – the economics of Linux and other open-source software" (PDF). Discussion Paper No. 493. Department of Economics, University of Helsinki. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 March 2009. Retrieved 22 March 2009.
  20. ↑ Pawlak, Michel; Bryce, Ciarán; Laurière, Stéphane (29 May 2008). "The Practice of Free and Open Source Software Processes" (PDF). Rapport de Recherche. inria-00274193, version 2. 6519 (April 2008). ISSN   0249-6399. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 April 2011. Retrieved 22 March 2009.
  21. ↑ Hendry, Andrew (4 March 2008). "RepRap: An open-source 3D printer for the masses". Computerworld Australia. The Industry Standard. Archived from the original on 16 May 2008. Retrieved 22 March 2009.
  22. ↑ Honsig, Markus (25 January 2006). "The most open of all cars". Technology Review (in German). Heinz Heise. Archived from the original on 6 April 2009. Retrieved 22 March 2009.
  23. ↑ "Australian drive for green commuter cars". The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney. 14 June 2010. Retrieved 5 June 2015.
  24. ↑ Suber, Peter. "Open Access Overview" Archived 19 May 2007 at the Wayback Machine . Earlham.edu. Retrieved on 2011-12-03
  25. ↑ Alma Swan; Sheridan Brown (May 2005). "Open access self-archiving: An author study" (PDF). Key Perspectives Limited. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 February 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2010.
  26. ↑ Andrew, Theo (30 October 2003). "Trends in Self-Posting of Research Material Online by Academic Staff". Ariadne (37). ISSN   1361-3200. Archived from the original on 20 November 2010. Retrieved 22 March 2009.
  27. ↑ "Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research". Archived from the original on 24 November 2010. Retrieved 12 July 2009.
  28. ↑ "Open access - RCUK Policy and revised guidance". Archived from the original on 21 March 2018. Retrieved 13 July 2016.
  29. ↑ "Outcome of Proceedings, 9526/16 RECH 208 TELECOM 100, The transition towards an Open Science System". Archived from the original on 5 July 2016. Retrieved 13 July 2016.
  30. ↑ "MIT faculty open access to their scholarly articles". MIT. 20 March 2009. Archived from the original on 30 January 2014. Retrieved 22 November 2010.
  31. ↑ "Policy of the Society for General Microbiology towards author self-archiving on PubMed Central and institutional and other repositories". Archived from the original on 26 May 2011. Retrieved 10 April 2009.
  32. ↑ "OnlineOpen". Archived from the original on 27 April 2011. Retrieved 10 April 2009.
  33. ↑ "About OpenCourseWare". Archived from the original on 22 April 2009. Retrieved 10 April 2009.
  34. ↑ "AMS Journal price survey". Archived from the original on 28 March 2010. Retrieved 23 May 2009.
  35. ↑ "Response from the University of California to the Public statement from Nature Publishing Group regarding subscription renewals at the California Digital Library" (PDF). 10 June 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 June 2010. Retrieved 13 September 2015.
  36. ↑ Hawkes, Nigel (10 November 2003). "Boycott 'greedy' journal publishers, say scientists". The Times. London. Archived from the original on 29 April 2011. Retrieved 13 September 2015.
  37. ↑ NMC (2012). "One Year or Less: Open Content". 2010 Horizon Report. Archived from the original on 16 March 2012. Retrieved 18 April 2012.
  38. ↑ Admin (2012). "Open.edu: Top 50 University Open Courseware Collections". DIY Learning. Archived from the original on 8 October 2017. Retrieved 18 April 2012.
  39. ↑ Stutz, Michael (1997). "Applying Copyleft To Non-Software Information". www.gnu.org. Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 20 March 2024.
  40. 1 2 Wiley, David (1998). "Open Content". OpenContent.org. Archived from the original on 28 January 1999. Retrieved 17 April 2012.
  41. 1 2 Wiley, David. "Open Content". OpenContent.org. Archived from the original on 23 June 2012. Retrieved 18 November 2011.
  42. ↑ Atkins, Daniel E.; John Seely Brown; Allen L. Hammond (February 2007). A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities (PDF). Menlo Park, CA: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. p. 4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 March 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
  43. ↑ Geser, Guntram (January 2007). Open Educational Practices and Resources. OLCOS Roadmap 2012. Salzburg, Austria: Salzburg Research, EduMedia Group. p. 20. Archived from the original on 4 June 2010. Retrieved 6 November 2010.
  44. ↑ OpenContent is officially closed. And that's just fine. on opencontent.org (30 June 2003, archived)
  45. ↑ "Creative Commons Welcomes David Wiley as Educational Use License Project Lead". creativecommons.org. 23 June 2003. Archived from the original on 6 August 2003.
  46. ↑ "Revision history of "Definition" – Definition of Free Cultural Works". Freedomdefined.org. Archived from the original on 2 November 2012. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  47. ↑ "History – Definition of Free Cultural Works". Freedomdefined.org. Archived from the original on 30 October 2012. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  48. ↑ "Resolution:Licensing policy". Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on 13 November 2012. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  49. ↑ "Approved for Free Cultural Works". Creative Commons. 24 July 2009. Archived from the original on 25 June 2012. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  50. ↑ "Open Knowledge Foundation launched". Open Knowledge Foundation Weblog. 24 May 2004. Archived from the original on 1 October 2011. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
  51. ↑ Davies, Tim (12 April 2014). "Data, information, knowledge and power – exploring Open Knowledge's new core purpose". Tim's Blog. Archived from the original on 29 June 2017. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
  52. ↑ version 1.0 on opendefinition.org (archived 2007)
  53. ↑ Open Definition 2.1 Archived 27 January 2017 at the Wayback Machine on opendefinition.org
  54. ↑ licenses Archived 1 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine on opendefintion.com
  55. ↑ Creative Commons 4.0 BY and BY-SA licenses approved conformant with the Open Definition Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine by Timothy Vollmer on creativecommons.org (27 December 2013)
  56. ↑ Open Definition 2.0 released Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine by Timothy Vollmer on creativecommons.rog (7 October 2014)

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.