Talk:Full-length open source movie ‘Boy Who Never Slept’ is released online
Open source?[edit]
How is this movie considered "open source"? Is the script available? Even if so, that doesn't seem to meet the definition of "open source". I'll read about "open source" again to see if it makes sense to me. Karen
After reading the criteria for an open source movie, this situation doesn't seem to fit - it's just a movie released into public domain. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Karen 15:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article was a mess, I just cleaned it up a bit. There is no commonly accepted definition of the phrase "open source movie"; if one was to apply the Open Source Definition to other content, this film would certainly not qualify as commercial use of the content is prohibited.--Eloquence
- Thanks for updating the Wikipedia link - It makes more sense to me now. Karen 05:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
more or less[edit]
It's of course language abuse.
- but :
It seem that it's possible to edit and modify the official movie, but it seem that "All of the raw unedited footage, including audio files, is offered under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license"
It's not too bad 'open source' for movie ?
I think the meaning is correct, maybe we should find a better word for films and movies? Jacques Divol
What can you really do besides release an uncut version or dub or re-edit it? Basically, the pre-edited footage is being released, but the real source of the film (the actors having done their thing already) isn't open. It does seem like the language is being bent a bit to hype the film. That's just the impression I get from reading this story and the sites listed in the sources. I don't have any other suggestion for a better word except not to emphasize the open source claim, but state that it's offered under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license, which seems like a more descriptive claim. Karen 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)