[pp.int.general] free software video streaming

[Richard Stallman]

    1. Operating within the scope of content, licensing must be used which  
    does not place restrictions on accessing, using or distributing the  
    content if it is to be considered ?open content?.

This is an important distinction to make.  However, I suggest
we use a different name, avoiding the words "opem" and "content".

1. Referring to a published work of authorship as "content" disparages
the work.  See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content.

Let's call it a "work".

2. The word "open" suggests a different meaning, so it is not the
right word for this.  I suggest we call it "freely redistributable".

So the question is whether any given work is freely redistributable or
not.

    2. Operating within the scope of  media, the audience must be able to  
    access content without using non-free software to consider the medium  
    to be ?free?.

I'd suggest a stronger criterion for a free digital format:

* The specs should be published.
* Everyone should be free to implement the format.

Thus, a format is free if it is not secret or patented.

    3. ?Open information? is data that functions as completely open and  
    freely accessible within the scope of both content licensing and  
    software licensing.

I pretty much agree with you on the substance, but I suggest saying it
differently: a work (not for practical use) is distributed ethically
if (1) it is freely redistributable and (2) its format is free.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call