Je crois que le concept de free-X (music, encyclopedia...) est vraiment génial. L'article est intéressant et met en evidence les problèmes relatifs à ce genre de démarches:
Pour la musique :
But it's already clear that some of the strengths of open source software simply don't apply to music. In computing, the open source method lets users improve software by eliminating errors and inefficient bits of code, but it's not obvious how that might happen with music. In fact, the music is not really "open source" at all. The files posted on the OAL music website http://www.openmusicregistry.org(...) so far are all MP3s and Ogg Vorbises--formats which allow you to listen but not to modify.
C'est vrai que je n'ai pas connaissances de musique distribuée librement avec les sources (partitions par exemple). Même dans le cas des groupes cités par l'article : http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp.html(...)
Pour les encyclopédies:
The main problem is that the experts Sanger wants to recruit to write articles have little incentive to participate. They don't score academic brownie points in the same way software engineers do for upgrading Linux, and Nupedia can't pay them.
It's a problem that's inherent to most open source products: how do you get people to chip in? Sanger says he's exploring ways to make money out of Nupedia while preserving the freedom of its content. Banner adverts are a possibility. But his best hope is that academics start citing Nupedia articles so authors can earn academic credit.
C'est vrai, que le monde de la recherche au sens large devrait s'impliquer plus largement dans les publications sous copyleft / free. Mais à voir les résultats de l'encyclopedie wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.com(...)) je trouve cela vraiment bien.
# Free music & Free Encylopedia
Posté par Wei Long . En réponse à la dépêche copyleft dans d'autres domaines. Évalué à 5.
Pour la musique :
But it's already clear that some of the strengths of open source software simply don't apply to music. In computing, the open source method lets users improve software by eliminating errors and inefficient bits of code, but it's not obvious how that might happen with music. In fact, the music is not really "open source" at all. The files posted on the OAL music website http://www.openmusicregistry.org(...) so far are all MP3s and Ogg Vorbises--formats which allow you to listen but not to modify.
C'est vrai que je n'ai pas connaissances de musique distribuée librement avec les sources (partitions par exemple). Même dans le cas des groupes cités par l'article :
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp.html(...)
Pour les encyclopédies:
The main problem is that the experts Sanger wants to recruit to write articles have little incentive to participate. They don't score academic brownie points in the same way software engineers do for upgrading Linux, and Nupedia can't pay them.
It's a problem that's inherent to most open source products: how do you get people to chip in? Sanger says he's exploring ways to make money out of Nupedia while preserving the freedom of its content. Banner adverts are a possibility. But his best hope is that academics start citing Nupedia articles so authors can earn academic credit.
C'est vrai, que le monde de la recherche au sens large devrait s'impliquer plus largement dans les publications sous copyleft / free. Mais à voir les résultats de l'encyclopedie wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.com(...)) je trouve cela vraiment bien.