Talk:Open-source culture

There are at least ten people who will be contributing to it over the next two weeks who have a vested interest in OSC as artists, lawyers, and scholars. If, after this time, you still really have a twitch about it, help us redistribute this body of knowledge across other pages on Wikipedia (or nix it).Brianh 05:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Definition of Open Source Culture (and relation to ther articles)

I would argue that what you are defining is a position on intellectual property, not open source culture. I would define open source culture as culture that is de facto open source: i.e. cultural artifacts and pracices whose sources are open. As a model, we might look at the open source software article. Mtribe 19:16, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe this could be merged with free content or free culture movement (which should probably be at free culture (which currently redirects to Lessig's Free Culture)).

I don't think the movement for (and culture surrounding) wider FLOSS-like copyright licensing and (where applicable) development models really has a definite name (although `free culture' is probably what I have heard used most often). There probably needs to be a large discussion about what we call this in WP and better categorisation, linking, and, maybe merging of articles in this area. Is there a Wikiproject?

--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 00:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this article is point of view and speculation on something that doesn't exist (as so-called "open source culture"). I've moved a lot of the material to open source where it was dulicating a lot. --71.161.220.178 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the material was a thesis on open source with no supporting references. I've redirected this article to open source. People are free to retrieve any old material from the article's history if they think its useful elsewhere. I did my best to move it to appropriate articles. --71.161.214.41 04:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rved the redirect to promote discussion of the merge. --Karnesky 01:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long should we wait for discussion, before redirecting to this article to it's higher quality cousin, open source? --71.161.223.99 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually best to make your case on the talk page you want to merge to & wait about a week (depending on comments and consensus. --Karnesky 17:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merge of material has already been made, I'm just trying to install a redirect. --71.161.216.8 01:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just rewrote the introduction and intellectual property sections of this article. I also tried to move it to "open-source culture," but made a typo during the move (oops). I've submitted an admin request to fix the move.

Full disclosure: I'm a university prof at Brown. This article was originally written by students in a seminar I taught at Columbia University. I now teach a similar seminar at Brown. The title of the seminar is "Open-Source Culture: Art, Technology, Intellectual Property." So I'm not really in an impartial position vis-a-vis the disambiguation issues with "open source" and "free culture." That said, I think it would probably make sense to mere "open source culture" into "open source". Mtribe 06:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specify fixation

The link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation in the first paragraph should not point to the disambiguation page. This is because the definitions of fixation on the disabiguation page are somewhat contradictictory (depending on the context).