[okfn-discuss] Open Source movie definition

[Rufus Pollock]

2009/3/31 Tim Baumann <jayday at gmx.de>:

[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