[Imc-france-paris] Re: Open Publishing

[JjMeric]

Hi Matthew

the French translation (first cut, not edited by peers!) is now available 
at
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcFranceOpenPubMatthew

it is being integrated as well in our new site, in the building
Not everything is there yet in terms of Open Editing, but we'll see what 
we can do !

JJ


matthew arnison <maffew at cat.org.au> wrote on 13/01/2003 12:44:14:

> Hi
> 
> I got lost too.
> 
> I think it was because at the time I wrote that footnote, OP was being
> considered as a condition of membership of the indymedia network.
> 
> What I am trying to get at I think is that people might want to
> participate in indymedia, and in open publishing, without being full
> indymedia network members. I.e. without setting up an indymedia
> collective.
> 
> And the basic unit, or "chunk", of involvement, is a story. And the
> conditions of sharing that story are in the license. And I'm proposing 
we
> develop one (or more) copyleft licenses that embody the spirit of open
> publishing. That way people can tag their work as open publishing, and
> where-ever that story goes, a little bit of open publishing goes with it
> in the license.
> 
> Does that help?
> 
> I should rewrite the English version!
> 
> I must ask, do you really want to translate all the footnotes? They go
> on and on and on...
> 
> Anyway, a translation is exciting. Let me know when it's done and I'll
> link to it.
> 
> m.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, JJM wrote:
> 
> > Salut Matthieu
> >
> > I am busy translating into French
> > http://www.cat.org.au/maffew/cat/openpub.html)
> >
> > There's one sentence where I am getting lost, probably because I am 
out of
> > context:
> > That's in the paragraph where you start to expand on "copyleft".
> >
> > The sentence is:
> > "But I think we will also need to define how we share chunks of
> > information smaller than that involved in total membership of the 
network
> > ."
> >
> > and the immediate context is:
> > "This may be a key part of what we need to define open publishing to
> > ourselves and potential collaborators. It doesn't have to be legally
> > watertight to be useful. That can be evolved in later, The most useful
> > thing would be to start playing with the definition. This is partly 
what
> > we are doing with our work on defining the indymedia network. But I 
think
> > we will also need to define how we share chunks of information smaller
> > than that involved in total membership of the network. And the basic 
chunk
> > of information is a story and the copyleft license that applies to 
it."
> >
> > Could you explain or rephrase that ?
> >
> > Thanks
> > JJ
> >
> 
>