Open Content means different things to different people. In general, it applies to creative works like text, images, video and sounds that can be redistributed and modified freely. The name is derived from OpenSource, and probably originated with the Open Content Web site:


The Open Knowledge Definition provided by the Open Knowledge Foundation provides a good definition of what is meant here by OpenContent.

The FreeSoftwareFoundation recommends not using the words “open” and “content”.

: :

The general gist of their argument is “open” alludes to their evil twin, OpenSource, and that “content” is a vague, unappealing word that denigrates the actual value of the work. “Content” is whatever goes in a box or package. Another term that’s been getting more play is FreeCulture. The name doesn’t particularly matter.

There’s no really clearcut definition of OpenContent. Some people use it for any freely-redistributable work; others only want it used for works that function more or less like OpenSource software (see the Free Software Definition, the Open Source Definition, and the related Debian Free Software Guidelines).

A Free Culture Definition on the wiki might be a good start, though.


I elided the unsigned comments and tried to fit them into the text. I figured since they were unsigned they were meant for some kind of DocumentMode integration. If that wasn’t the case, I can re-add them.

adding the comments in upon the next rewrite (if found useful) was definitely the purpose of leaving them unsigned. still feeling my way around. (as a tangent, i find “free software” to be a much more confusing and “bad” term than “open content”, completely aside from any idiological agenda :)

I have yet to figure out why FLOSS advocates are so entangled in WordMagic. My personal theory is that we tend to confuse branding with variable naming. B-)


EditNearLinks: DocumentMode FreeCulture FreeSoftwareFoundation OpenSource


The same page elsewhere: