Category talk:Public copyright licenses

Reasons for the Renaming Proposal
Open content does not have a coherent definition. If we use the OpenContent.org definition, then any licence that grants any permission qualifies as an open content licence, which is why I think 'Alternative copyright licenses' is a better term. On the other hand, if we use the Open Knowledge Foundation definition, 'open content' is synonymous with 'free content', for which we already have a category.

Whether 'content' includes 'software' is beyond my abilities to judge, but the Open Knowledge Foundation considers the two distinct. If content does includes software, then shouldn't free and open source licences be listed under the 'Free content licences' sub-category rather than the 'Open content licenses' category?

Only a few of the licences listed in this category don't qualify as either free content or free software licences: 'CrimethInc. N©! license' (forbids commercial use), Simputer General Public License (forbids commercial use), Open Game License (yet to be approved; may qualify as an open content license), four of the six Creative Commons licences, and 'Anti-copyright notice' (some of which are free, libre and open, some of which are not). Given that, if there really is a need for a category at all, 'Noncommercial copyright licences' would cover most of them without confusing free and non-free licences as this category currently does. --Sanglorian (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I'm now suggesting 'Public copyright licenses' rather than 'Alternative copyright licenses'. --Sanglorian (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What definition of open content are we using?
Hi folks,

I'm not sure that this category is appropriate, at least without some more clarification. There is no set definition of open content: it is either synonymous with free content (c.f. the open source/free software divide) or describes an amorphous class of content that is somehow less restricted than it would be if all rights were reserved under copyright.

If it is the former, then there is no need to duplicate the work done at free content licenses. If it is the latter, we need to clarify that.

Very happy to hear your comments here or at my talk page. --Sanglorian (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)