How Open Publishing differs from Free Software

Or... what we still need to learn from the Free Software Movement

The Indymedia newswire works on the principle of OPEN PUBLISHING, and according to an article by Matthew Arnison which is linked-to from the About us pages of Indymedia Ireland, that's like Free Software. It is and it isn't though. I think that if we made it more like free software it would improve the Indymedia project, spreading the good word. Here's what I mean... what do you think?

The Free Software Foundation define what they mean by "free software" on their website (http://www.gnu.org/) as follows:

"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. "

Matthew Arnison describise "free software" in his article (http://www.cat.org.au/maffew/cat/openpub.html) in a way that would better describe "open source" software. If we try to apply the above definition, from the Free Software Foundation though to Indymedia I think it would look like this:

Freedom 0: No change here. Indymedia info can be used for anything from organizing demos to poking fun at trots! ;-)

Freedom 1: I see the "source code" in this sense is the comments section of each newswire article. It's where facts are checked, context explained, and bitching about trots and anarchists! ;-) In the same way that I can use some Free Software without have a window open showing me constantly the source code of that program, I think that the "freedom" to view comments with articles shouldn't be a necessity. Could you browse indymedia with comments switched off?

Freedoms 2 and 3: Freedom to redistribute, and hack, even for *commercial* purposes. Its fair to require that the commercial publication also provides the same freedoms, of course. That's like the Creative Commons license here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/