https://freedomdefined.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Angela+Beesley&feedformat=atom
Definition of Free Cultural Works - User contributions [en]
2024-03-28T08:47:36Z
User contributions
MediaWiki 1.38.4
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=OSHW/translations/ko&diff=15480
OSHW/translations/ko
2013-06-26T09:53:33Z
<p>Angela Beesley: starting page so it can be saved without triggering the abuse filter</p>
<hr />
<div>-</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:Angela_Beesley&diff=7063
User:Angela Beesley
2010-01-05T01:33:56Z
<p>Angela Beesley: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Angelabeesley.jpg|150px|right|Angela]]<br />
I'm a co-founder of [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia Wikia]. You can contact me by email at [mailto:%77%69%6b%69%40%6e%67%65%2e%6c%61 wiki'''&#64;'''nge<small>.</small>la].</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Tgr&diff=6053
User talk:Tgr
2009-05-18T15:35:11Z
<p>Angela Beesley: New page: Hi Tgr. Welcome to the wiki. Thanks for pointing out the favicon problem. It has been fixed now, but it might take a while before it shows up. ~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi Tgr. Welcome to the wiki. Thanks for pointing out the favicon problem. It has been fixed now, but it might take a while before it shows up. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 15:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Kychot&diff=6052
User talk:Kychot
2009-05-18T15:34:07Z
<p>Angela Beesley: New page: Hi Kychot. Welcome to the wiki. Thanks for your edits here. ~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi Kychot. Welcome to the wiki. Thanks for your [[special:contributions/Kychot|edits]] here. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriswaterguy&diff=6051
User talk:Chriswaterguy
2009-05-18T15:32:09Z
<p>Angela Beesley: New page: Hi Chris. Welcome to the wiki! Thanks for adding the Creative Commons mark page. I've added a link to it from the Logos and buttons. User:Angela| ~~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi Chris. Welcome to the wiki! Thanks for adding the [[Creative Commons mark]] page. I've added a link to it from the [[Logos and buttons]]. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logos_and_buttons&diff=6050
Logos and buttons
2009-05-18T15:30:59Z
<p>Angela Beesley: see also Creative Commons mark</p>
<hr />
<div>== Official logo ==<br />
<br />
The official logo of the Definition of Free Cultural Works was designed by [http://falzon.info/ Marc Falzon], and placed in the public domain:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--wikilogo.png]]<br />
<br />
An SVG copy can be found [[Media:Official-logo.svg|here]]<br />
<br />
The logo represents both the diversity of human culture, and the openness and freedom to interact with free cultural works.<br />
<br />
Please feel free to create derivatives of this logo, and [[Special:Upload|upload them]] to this wiki.<br />
<br />
== Buttons == <br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: #ffeeee; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid red; padding: .5em; text-align: center;">Please note that simply adding a button does not license your work in any way. You have to clearly state which license you use. One way of doing that is making the link point to the license, and having an explicit statement "''This work is licensed under the ... license''" below the work.</div><br />
<br />
=== AMYMADE's buttons ===<br />
<br />
The following set of buttons were designed by [http://www.amymade.com/ AMYMADE] with the support of the [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation] and represents our official recommendation:<br />
<br />
[[Image:CCBY_black.png]] [[Image:CCBYSA_black.png]] [[Image:GFDL_black.png]] [[Image:GPL_black.png]] [[Image:LGPL_black.png]] [[Image:PUB_black.png]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:CCBY_red.png]] [[Image:CCBYSA_red.png]] [[Image:GFDL_red.png]] [[Image:GPL_red.png]] [[Image:LGPL_red.png]] [[Image:PUB_red.png]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:CCBY_yellow.png]] [[Image:CCBYSA_yellow.png]] [[Image:GFDL_yellow.png]] [[Image:GPL_yellow.png]] [[Image:LGPL_yellow.png]] [[Image:PUB_yellow.png]]<br />
<br />
These buttons are in the public domain. Which color you use is your choice; we suggest red for music, black for science and software, and yellow for everything else.<br />
<br />
=== Small buttons ===<br />
<br />
This is the cleanest set so far and it comes with a [[:Image:Definition of Free Cultural Works button small.svg|template]].<br />
<br />
[[Image:Attribution button small.png]] [[Image:Sharealike button small.png]] [[Image:GFDL 1.2 button small.png]] [[Image:PD button small.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Inkwina's icons ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:GNU FDL.png]] [[Image:FreeBSD.png]] [[Image:GNU FDL alt.png]] [[Image:CC-BY-SA.png]]<br />
<br />
The svg versions [[:Image:CC-BY-SA.svg|CC-BY-SA.svg]] and [[:Image:GNU_FDL.svg|Image:GNU_FDL.svg]] do not display well online. They where created using Inkscape, and the SVG hasn't been cleaned up. But the [[:Image:Blank button.svg|Blank button.svg]] can be used to generate more buttons. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:01, 22 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
=== Other button styles ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:By-sa-button2.png]] [[Image:By-button.png]] [[Image:Pd-button.png]]<br />
<br />
Slightly different style:<br />
<br />
[[Image:By-sa-button.png]]<br />
<br />
Again a different style - contributed by Jörg Petri:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Pd2.gif]] [[Image:Pd_1.gif]]<br />
<br />
=== License Classification Icons by Terry Hancock ===<br />
<br />
These are meant to be generic analogs to Creative Commons' "license deed" icons (The CC icons are subject to trademark. I intend these icons to be different enough to avoid any trademark dispute or confusion, but similar enough to facilitate communication). Unlike the CC icons, these do not map to particular detailed license modules, but rather indicate general classes of licenses.<br />
<br />
So far, these are the only ones I could think of needing for free licenses, but I am interested in hearing suggestions for what additional requirements we ought to have icons for:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_pd.svg]] "Public Domain" or "No Requirements".<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_by.svg]] "Attribution" requirement.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sa.svg]] "Copyleft" or "Share Alike" requirement.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sc.svg]] "Source Code" requirement.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_drm.svg]] "No DRM/TPM" requirement.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_hard.svg]] "Production Copyleft" (a proposal for effective copyleft on hardware designs)<br />
<br />
I also have some "non-free" icons for license comparison purposes, along with color-coded versions of the above (black="null", green="maximal individual freedom", blue="maximal maintenance of freedom", yellow="semi-free or free within a limited domain", red="not free at all"). I recommend these icons for use where free and non-free licenses will be compared with each other:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_pd.svg]] "Public Domain" (same as above)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_by_grn.svg]] "Attribution"<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sa_blu.svg]] "Copyleft"<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sc_blu.svg]] "Source Code"<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_drm_blu.svg]] "No DRM/TPM"<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_nc.svg]] "Non-Commercial"<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_nd.svg]] "Non-Derivative"<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_arr.svg]] "All Rights Reserved"<br />
<br />
Here are a set of icons representing the Four_freedoms:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_use.svg]] Freedom #1: Use/Performance<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_study.svg]] Freedom #2: Understanding<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_copy.svg]] Freedom #3: Copying and Distribution<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_add.svg]] Freedom #4: Derivatives<br />
<br />
== License description pages ==<br />
<br />
For each license, we will try to create a description page. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/CC-BY-2.5]] - Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5<br />
* [[Licenses/CC-BY-SA-2.5]] - Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 2.5<br />
* [[Licenses/GNU GPL 2]] - GNU General Public License 2<br />
* [[Licenses/GNU FDL 1.2]] - GNU Free Documentation License 1.2<br />
* [[Public domain]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[Creative Commons mark]]</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:Angela_Beesley&diff=6049
User:Angela Beesley
2009-05-18T15:27:50Z
<p>Angela Beesley: not really blogging anymore. changing to twitter</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Angelabeesley.jpg|none|150px|right|Angela]]<br />
I'm co-founder and vice-president of [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia Wikia] and an advisory board member of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation].<br />
<br />
'''Contact details:'''<br />
*Email: wiki'''@'''nge.la<br />
*Skype: beesley<br />
*IRC: Angela in [irc://irc.freenode.net/wikia #wikia] on freenode<br />
*Twitter: [http://twitter.com/wikiangela @WikiAngela]<br />
<br clear=all /><br />
The 10 [[Special:Newpages|newest pages]] on {{SITENAME}}<br />{{Special:Newpages/10}}</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=6048
Talk:Definition
2009-05-18T15:26:58Z
<p>Angela Beesley: /* TECHNICAL: favicon */</p>
<hr />
<div>== What about the applicable law? ==<br />
<br />
If a license has a clause about the applicable law, is the license free?<br />
In my opinion, this clause is a problem because only the people that know a certain law can understand license's implied sides.<br />
<br />
: I think CC are working on licenses covered by Berne/WIPO law only. But a license needs a jurisdiction to avoid confusion or argument over terms and meaning, so in this case having a jurisdiction may protect freedom. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 20:06, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== First Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
I had some issues with the definition of free content here. Firstly, the document attempts to define "free content" as so many have done in the past, yet there is no clear definition of what is and isn't free content in the "free content movement" you discuss. It concerns me that a definition is being created in isolation from the wider community without proper discussion.<br />
<br />
I see the definition here models itself on the free software definition, but misses several important and fundamental aspects:<br />
<br />
How does the definition handle digital works (such as images, documents, etc) versus non-digitual works (such as hard-copy books, paintings, sculptures, etc)?<br />
<br />
How should digital works be treated? A digital work, such as a wordprocessor document, can be viewed in two ways: firstly, as a work in and of itself, i.e. content, but also as a piece of software itself that can display a final work. Should you only have the freedom to study a work (content), or should you also have the freedom to study how a work was created (software)?<br />
<br />
The definition talks about the freedom to make and release (distribute?) modifications but it doesn't say anything about source copies of work. I can think of several examples where the freedom to make modifications can be provided, but without a source copy of a work (i.e. in the format preferred for making modifications) making modifications could be prohibitive:<br />
<br />
* Protected PDF - sure, decrypting such a PDF is possible but its a) tricky to export a PDF to a format that can be modified with all the information intact (images, tables, etc), and b) it may be illegal to decrypt protected PDFs in certain juristictions (DMCA?)<br />
* Text content as image files - a user could allow users the freedom to modify his written works but only distribute them in image format. It is difficult for downstream users to then extract the text content<br />
<br />
You also talk about "free content licenses" where you should really be talking about free content works: a license enables a free content work, but<br />
<br />
Free experession is not the same as free content: you can have the right to free expresssion without having free content, and free content does not guarantee free expression.<br />
<br />
I hope this is helpful. --[[User:Rgladwell|Rgladwell]] 20:25, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for your comments. If you don't mind, I will move them to [[Talk:Definition/Unstable]] and respond there, just to have all comments in one place. First thoughts: You raise a very good point. Is it possible for something to be free content without the "source code" (or something equivalent) being available? Under the current definition, it is. Perhaps we need to find a wording that requires source availabiliy where such sources are essential to modifying the work. More later,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:42, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I've dispatched some of the comments into their own sections in Definition/Unstable. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:16, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Is there somewhere I can sign? -rhY-<br />
<br />
::In terms of source requirements, should it be more along the lines of source must be supplied where it existed in the making of the derivative and in the case of simple copies, if source was available for the original?<br />
<br />
Wow ... you even frame/structure Talk?! ... meh. Anyhow, ''nota'': you have Definition as your default index (wrong ... on basic principle, wrong ... you program? think trampolene) but Definition links to the rest of the site very very poorly. --BenTrem [[User:68.148.26.220|68.148.26.220]] 01:07, 25 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== versioning ==<br />
License 333 and version 0.66 -- it is a sign! Excellent.<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Open Knowledge Definition ==<br />
<br />
Last september/october the [http://www.okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation] 'ported' the Open Source Definiton to produce the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition] ([http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html full text]).<br />
<br />
This came out of various discussions with people working on open geodata, open access, and open databases of scientific data. As I wrote then:<br />
<br />
"The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) provides an answer to the question: what is open knowledge? It puts forward, in a simple and clear manner, principles that define open knowledge and which open knowledge licenses must satisfy.<br />
<br />
The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access' journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential blurring of what is open and what is not.<br />
<br />
In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition, by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in achieving these ends."<br />
<br />
I therefore think this new initiative is a big step forward at a time, when at least to judge from my experience of debates about the CC license at Free Culture UK, there is no clear consensus about terms such as 'Free Content' (and therefore no consensus about the norms of the community).<br />
<br />
Given the common interest in these issues I'd very much like to get further involved in the FCED -- and parhaps also look at a way to merge the OKD and the FCED.<br />
<br />
--RufusPollock<br />
<br />
== My take ==<br />
<br />
:''"Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other works do not benefit from artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely."''<br />
<br />
I think this needs some revising. Production and quality do not benefit from artificial scarcity- individual works may very much so benefit. The last sentence needs some amending- Free content is not just used Freely, but ''more''. An important distinction to my mind.<br />
<br />
:#''the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression''<br />
:#''the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies ''<br />
<br />
This freedom isn't very clear. Does this involve not charging, or are "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fees acceptable?<br />
<br />
::My take on this question: those fees are not acceptable as normally understood. But it does not involve not charging either. For instance, in Free Software, you can charge whatever you can manage when someone obtains a copy from you. That you cannot do is make them pay you a fee when they then make copies of that copy for themselves.<br />
<br />
:''"Any original work of authorship is copyrighted. Under copyright law, authors are considered God-like "creators" and are given legal powers they can use against those who duplicate "their" content in altered or unaltered form."''<br />
<br />
Personally, I'd like a bit of a mention of the artificiality of copyright. That first line certainly makes it sound like copyright is a God-given natural right. <br />
<br />
More generally, the attribution section strikes me as troublesome. What happens if I take an article, on Fujiwara no Teika, say, which is a stub, and work like the dickens on it, until it is orders of magnitude larger, such that there is not so much as a single word in common with the original article? Should the first person still be credited as the original author? --maru ([[User:129.21.121.235|129.21.121.235]] 06:47, 6 May 2006 (CEST))<br />
<br />
== Adelphi ==<br />
<br />
Please also consult the [http://www.adelphicharter.org/ Adelphi charter].<br />
<br />
And regarding Public domain there is also the concept of "gemeinfrei"/common free in droit' auteur regulation. <br />
i.e. public property vs. free to use<br />
<br />
==The freedom to use and perform the work==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see the word "display" added to this since perform covers music and plays while display would cover films and pictures.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:46, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Since we speak of ''any use, private or public'', and all related rights, this is covered, but I agree that we can & should explicitly enumerate it in the next version.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Discussion list ==<br />
<br />
Is it possible to host the discussion list elsewhere than Google Groups? Not everyone wants to centralize their activity in a Google account. Not to mention that plain-jane Mailman archives are so much more usable than Google's system. Thanks. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:44, 16 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:I can host a mailman list for this on Wikia if there's no objection to that. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 14:18, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks for the offer - but I'd prefer to host the list with Mako. He's already offered to set up a list for us. As a private company in the wiki space which, I hope, will one day adopt the definition, I don't want Wikia to be seen as in any way influencing its content (same reason I wouldn't host the list with Wikimedia).--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks, anything resembling a normal mailing-list with public archives will be ok. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:31, 18 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Metaphor suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to thank the developers of this definition for clearly distinguishing between works that are truly free, and those that are only semi-free. One thing the concept lacks, though, is a simple metaphor as in "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech", that can be used to illustrate the basic distinction of this paradigm in a non-technical way. Not sure if such a thing belongs in an official definition, but I think it's something we should have around. I think I might have come up with something helpful, which is explained in the passage below:<br />
<br />
''Many licenses are called "free", but they are free in different ways. One has to ask, is a work "free to pamphlet" or "free to marionette"? A "free to pamphlet" work may be free to hand out copies (while rewriting or sale is restricted), but a "free to marionette" work is free to adapt into a marionette show, and to sell tickets at the door to rent the theatre and feed the hungry puppetteers.''--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 00:03, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: I think that is a nice metaphor for an essay. I would encourage you to draft an essay here -- I hope that, like the GNU site, freedomdefined.org will eventually be a solid collection of philosophical material.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:13, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I've written something at [[Free to marionette]]. Not sure where it goes in the structure, though.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 09:29, 24 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I've collected that and some other material I found here at [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]. There didn't seem to be any established place for such material till now, so I just went ahead and created one.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 08:01, 10 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Source data ==<br />
<br />
I think the source data section will still need some work to deal with cases where such data is simply not obtainable; IMHO that should not make the work non-free.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:11, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think this is a very tricky part. The source vs. binary duality is very different in the case of a creative work. If I took a photo of a flower would the source data be the flower itself, the raw format of the photo, or would the jpg be enough? If I released a png after adjusting the white balance, would I still have to release the raw format for a work to be free and be excused only if I happen to 'accidentally' destroy the raw data? I think that as long as a work is editable the source data is irrelevant. In the case of software, not releasing source places a technical impediment to modifying the work. In the case of a 3D scene this might also be the case, but in the case of an image it is clearly not. In the case of an audio file, or a film, would the author have to release the off cuts? I would not think so. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 16:07, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think is this fine to distinguish between works where there are no "source data" and where there is. A not yet fleshed-out thought is that anything that can be modified non-destructively should be available for distribution in the preferred form for modification. [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:28, 27 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Copyleft suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to see a [[discussion of copyleft]] and what it needs to have to promote / protect a pool of Free Works.<br />
<br />
==Moral rights==<br />
<br />
There are some moral rights (''droit d'auteur'' not ''copyright'') that I have as an author and due to legal restriction I can't waive them. Does this make my work unfree? This page or [[Permissible restrictions]] does not address this issue.<br />
<br />
PS. You may call me old fashioned, but I don't think sentences like these give a mature and intelligent impression: "They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how 'their content' can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies." [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Samulili Samulili from Wikimedia projects]<br />
:I agree, the hostility is unnecessary and immature. [[User:130.58.68.159|130.58.68.159]] 22:47, 1 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:In my opinion, moral rights do not make your own work un-free, because they don't forbid other people to e.g. make modifications, they allow you to oppose some modifications on a case by case basis. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:21, 6 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Commercial Restrictions==<br />
<br />
What about some restrictions on the commercial distribution of a work? That is, a free culture work can be copied and those copies can be shared but with some restrictions on selling those copies when permission is not granted.<br />
<br />
:That isn't free content. Commercial Restrictions are explicitly not [[permissible restrictions]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 18:20, 3 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== In the summary... ==<br />
<br />
considered "free." --> considered "free".--[[User:Alnokta|Alnokta]] 20:47, 9 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== "god-like creators"? ==<br />
<br />
From the definition: "In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used."<br />
<br />
Is this even true? The purpose of Western copyright law is not meant to prop authors upon some pedestal to be worshiped, but to provide direct incentives for them to publish in the first place. Thus society benefits from the all-rights-reserved work, even if to a lesser extent than if work was freely licensed. I recall at least one US Supreme Court case finding that the primary purpose of copyright/patents is to provide for the benefit of society, and secondly to reward the author if he/she so chooses. Congress has made policy decisions to exempt works of federal employees from copyright, provide for "fair usage", and set (generous) copyright duration limits.<br />
<br />
My incentive to publish most of my work under free licenses is to promote a progressive international society. I expect that the Congress that passed the original version of copyright law shared the same values, as they have created the foundation which makes our work possible. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] (Who is not a lawyer.) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:True, but one has to appreciate the significant difference between original intentions and truth on the ground. I believe that the '''Original''' intentions of the people who first came up with the idea of copyright where not to different from ours, when taken in the context of the period. Yet, I think that legislative development is an evolutionary process, and evolutionary process exist in a state of equilibrium which can become unstable, at which point a fork (not dissimilar to a source code fork) tends to occur. <br />
:I think that in the case of Creative Works this fork has occurred (with the emergence of the internet as the critical factor driving the imbalance) with the "Freedom Culture" and the "IP protectionist Culture" as its two branches, both relying on the same resource, namely "Copyright laws" to archive their goals. Therefore, it is very important to make it absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture", by stating the state of affairs as they are today, not based n original intentions. On the other hand a '''Definition''' ought not to rely on emotionally charged statements to provide its information. I think that statement needs to be changed not because of what it tries to convey, but because of how it does it ... because at the end of the day the medium ''is'' the message. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:27, 13 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::By "truth on the ground," do you mean to say that aggressive copyright compliance has historically increased? The idea is plausible, but I am interested in seeing direct evidence of such a claim.<br />
<br />
::I agree that making "absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture"" is terribly important. I also posit that we should respect both and acknowledge that "free" is not always appropriate. The author needs to make that choice, a choice partially informed by freedomdefined.org. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 16:04, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::By the "truth on the ground" I mean the actual legislation and regulations that are in effect today that are supposed to implement that original intention, as well as case law, actual enforcement, the current context particularly asyncronisity with the digital media, adequacy in view of globalisation etc ... and current public perception of those intentions <br />
<br />
:::So, in short, I think we are agreeing. Where I do tend to differ slightly is on the appropriatness of freedom. I think that while in the current situation ""free" is not always appropriate", this in not necessary to the human condition, but rather and incidental effect of history. On the other hand a definition like this needs to address the here and now, and not some potential state-of-affairs where humanity enjoys universal intellectual freedom. But, again, we mostly agree see [[Talk:FAQ#What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos?|here]] for e.g. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 18:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::::Yes. I should add that I am one to enjoy history :-) I'll catch you around, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Why the sneering tone towards authorship anyway? Free Content isn't about limiting author's rights, it's about convincing people that it's better for authors to share, not that they're misguided in wanting some control at all. It's really all about the author's control over the work, because without it an author couldn't say "you must follow the GPL" any more than he could say 'no copying.' [[User:130.58.194.111|130.58.194.111]] 05:08, 22 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Photos should not be modified ==<br />
<br />
There are legal restrictions on the use and modification of photos, especially if they show living people. Personality rights in many countries do not allow to use photos in a way that could be regarded as libel. Photos of buildings or industrial products do not include the right to reproduce them. So the definition of free photos should be less permissive than the current definition and should not include the right of unlimited changes. --[[User:84.137.109.177|84.137.109.177]] 21:28, 19 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Does this need to be in the definition? Surely, all free cultural works are subject to other laws. Free software programs that capture photos in such a way that is governed by personality rights would be affected by those laws, but that doesn't make the software non-free or require the free software defintion, or a license for that matter, to include a clause about personality rights. If the definition, or a license, were to include clauses about every other possible law, there would be no point. What about child pornography, for example?<br />
: Good point, but I don't think it ought to be in the definition. --[[User:Balleyne|Balleyne]] 00:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trademarks? ==<br />
<br />
There is no mention of trademark restrictions in this article. Does the section '''No other restrictions or limitations''' also include trademark restrictions? To give an example, the [[w:Empire State Building]] is protected by trademark restrictions, so it is not "free of limitations". Is a photo of it -- a photo that was released by the photographer under a free license -- to be considered "free" according to the definition? / [[commons:User:Fred J]] 17:55, 29 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:This is an excellent question. The best example I can think of is Linux, which is obviously freely-licensed and yet there was a huge controversy and court case surrounding the trademark issue. See [[w:Linux|Copyright, licensing and the Linux trademark]] and [http://news.com.com/Torvalds+weighs+in+on+Linux+trademark+row/2100-7344_3-5841222.html]. Usually it's not a problem, but the trademark issue can make things complicated. Wikipedia, which is GFDl of course, uses trademarks all the time, and has a disclaimer about it: [[w:Wikipedia:General_disclaimer]]. [[w:User:Nadav1]] 16:06, 31 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::See also [[:m:User talk:Eloquence#Licensing policy: request for clarification]], where I had asked Erik Möller for a clarification regarding that point. The issue goes beyond trademarks. Photographs of people, for instance, cannot be used in advertising without the subject's express consent in many countries, AFAIK (personality rights). What about design protection? And so on... [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 11:15, 1 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Wiki content license ==<br />
<br />
This is terrible, you selected some license, which is still in heavy 'development' to license the content and didn't even say '2.5 or later'. Please! Use instead something like the gnu project does with "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." at the end of each page. Who can actually decide such a change in this wiki?!? --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: What substantial problem do you see with CC-BY 2.5? I agree that we should add the "any later version" clause, though technically that's problematic at this point.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 11:09, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Selecting ONE license of many for this definition of content freedom marks this one license special. Why CCby2.5? Why not FAL (LAL) 1.2? Why not GFDL? Why not GPL? If there should be a license for the definition's content at all, it should be every single of the accepted 'free content' licenses (are the ones on the licenses page valid free content licenses?) or something extremely simple and permissive as what the GNU project uses for it's web text content. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 20:33, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::PS: A terrible solution would be something like "every change made starting with 04. Dec 2007 is licensed under all of the following licenses and any of their later versions"<br />
<br />
Doesn't CC-BY 2.5 itself say that it can be relicensed under any later version (and any national version)?<br />
<br />
Allowing reuse of content under any free cultural work license would be certainly wiser, though. It's a bit strange that free cultural works are not permitted to include the definition of free cultural works (unless they use cc-by license, and only that). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 22:53, 23 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Why can't they? The cc-by license isn't a "share alike" license. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: The cc-by still has a freaking load of text in it and this is a problem. The free software definition is licensed under "Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." that's ''it''. overkill is the right word. read [http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/texinfo/Verbatim-Copying-License.html#Verbatim-Copying-License this]. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Existing exemptions ==<br />
<br />
''Free Culture Licenses do not take rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.''<br />
<br />
What exactly does this section intend to state? In the strict sense, a license can never limit an exemption (thats why it is called an exemption). If it's meant in a more general sense, saying that FC licenses are not intended to limit your rights, thats not quite true: they do limit your right to relicense derivative works.<br />
<br />
For example, some countries have a concept called panorama freedom: photos made of copyrighted buildings and statues do not need permission from the copyright owner. Thus if somebody takes a picture of a statue, he can treat it as if it were fully his own work: sell it for money, grant limited distribution rights etc. If the statue was under a free "viral" license, that license would explicitly forbid this (the photo being a derivative work). Thus free licenses ''can'' take away rights (not freedoms though; actually they take away your right to reduce the freedom of others to use your work). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 01:35, 24 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
==An Objective Definition of Free?==<br />
<br />
I've written two books about copyright, (http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/index.htm) "Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP Law" and (http://www.greglondon.com/libre/index.htm) Libre Labyrinth". Both are licensed CC-BY. "Bounty Hunters" is more geared towards understanding how to find copyright laws that are fair for All Rights Reserved applications and how Free/Libre/Open projects fit into that context. "Libre Labyrinth" focuses on objectively describing and comparing different Free/Libre/Open licenses.<br />
<br />
The GNU-GPL is graphed out on pages 40 and 41 of "Libre Labyrinth". The main point is that all the "rooms" (all the areas that could be monopolized through some IP law) are open to one another. All the "doors" have been taken off the hinges (it's a bit of an odd metaphor for explaing Venn Diagrams that include allowed state transistions, but it's explained in the beginning of the book, and it seems to work), so there is no one-way trap-doors that allow someone to monopolize the work.<br />
<br />
It would seem that this would qualify as an objectively measurable definition of "Free". I thought you might find this useful, but didn't want to put my own works into your wiki. Conflict of interest, and all that. If this is useful, someone can put it in your main page. If it's not, then feel free to leave it out.<br />
<br />
[[User:GregLondon|GregLondon]] 00:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: Upload not functional ==<br />
<br />
Make the uploaded files directory writable please, I cannot upload files. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:44, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Save It ==<br />
<br />
Can we save it to a music CD<br />
<br />
==Box at top==<br />
Should be (+ "a" or + "the" as the 3rd word):<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is a stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}} [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] 23:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:"the" added, thank you! [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 13:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: favicon ==<br />
<br />
Please add the logo as a favicon, it's hard to find this site between lots of tabs... --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 17:01, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Mako]] has added this. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 20:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It doesn't seem to be working any more. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It's back now [http://freedomdefined.org/favicon.ico] but favicons can take a while to show up so you might not see it straight away. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 15:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Preamble for 1.1 ==<br />
<br />
I think in the 1.1 version we should try to rewrite the preamble in response to some of the feedback we've received. In particular:<br />
<br />
: In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies. <br />
<br />
This seems unnecessarily polemical and polarizing. We want to invite even those people to participate who utilize traditional copyright protections for some of their works. My preference would be to replace this entire paragraph with a more positive one about the power of sharing and collaboration. I don't think we need to take a pro-copyright stance in this definition, but I also don't think we need or want to take an anti-copyright one. Thoughts?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 22:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes Eric, [http://groups.google.co.nz/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/1fbba7c35655360e this is currently being discussed on the Wikieducator list] at the moment, but you are right to try and bring it here. My feeling is that the paragraph is so poor that it should be deleted immediately. Then you/we could build something up if it leaves a void. Personally I think the document is better without it all together, and is not diminished if nothing is there for a time. [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 15:07 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
:: I am an advocate of the free cultural works definition and have recently been directed to issues in the preamble of the definition in the WikiEducator discussion forums. The WikiEducator community have adopted the free cultural works definition and I think that the paragraph referred to below does not serve the interests of the definition. I propose that the following paragraph be deleted from the definition: "''In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.''" Having been on the receiving end of the FUD for many years, I appreciate and understand the sentiments expressed in the paragraph. Perhaps we should create an addendum containing further reading and key resources to articulate these concerns, but I don't think they should be included in the main body of the definition. <br />
--[[User:Mackiwg|Mackiwg]] 23:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus and take action on that paragraph...? [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 17:57 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
I've made an [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=prev&oldid=5059 edit] to [[Definition/Unstable]] per the above; feel free to revise further. If I don't hear anything back within the next week, I'm just going to do a quick 1.1 update myself.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Yes, neutral is better. I think this is the only part that can be considered biased, the rest looks fine. ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 15:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Updated.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:02, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Have further tweaked the Unstable version where I thought there were still unnecessary words, or confusing sentences. Hope to see them in the Definition at some stage. --[[User:Leighblackall|Leighblackall]] 21:35, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks so much for removing this. Now it's actually a neutral definition instead of advocacy. Maybe there's hope for the project after all. :) [[wikipedia:User:Omegatron/Non-free_content|Omegatron]] 14:27, 11 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Photos and their use ==<br />
<br />
As a photographer I am concerned with how my work is used. Now having said that I do fully understand the concept of creative commons and free cultural work and other "licenses" however the biggest issue I see is that "one size does not fit all". For example Creative Commons uses music/audio terms such as "remix" and in 30 years do taking photographs I have never once been asked if someone could "remix" my image. GFDL is meant for text - so using it for an image and saying "No Back cover text" does not fully apply.<br />
<br />
That being said the FCW license might work great for images with a few re-wording or clarifications. And these are suggestions, rough ones at that.<br />
<br />
''The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.''<br />
<br />
For images the word "perform" might be changed to "display". However for an image I feel "exceptions" should be considered. For example - a photographer takes an image in New Orleans lower ninth ward of an Afro-American who was killed during katrina and they release it "freely". Based upon the FCW "there must be no exception" so a user could re-purpose that image for use in a pro-Nazi poster. A CCL does have "fine print" that state the licensee can ''not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation'' which I think, in relations to images, is a good thing. Perhaps the FCW could change the wording of "There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations" to something along the lines of "There can be exceptions regarding, for example, exploitation or racist use" <br />
<br />
''The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".''<br />
<br />
I do not see any issues with this part as it would relate to images.<br />
<br />
''The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied''<br />
<br />
The concept is fine but it's execution in relation to an image might not fully work. Redistribution is fine. Adding to a collection is fine. Anyone can copy it is fine. Sales however is where you run into issues. Look at the "exception" issue(s) for an idea. If there were to be no restrictions on use there would be no doubt an image could be used in a manner it was never intended to be used and be used in that manner to make money. Again - perhaps in regards to images there could be a choice of the photographer to disallow use for hate "profit" (ie - use the image in pro-hate merchandise or literature). Likewise a religious group could take an image of someone dying and place it on a t-shirt saying "Aids Kills" and sell it. I fully believe that a photographer should be allowed some choice in how their image is used. <br />
<br />
''The freedom to distribute derivative works''<br />
<br />
Sort of a given with any of these "free" licenses. But perhaps in conjunction with any sort of image options as defined above this would slightly change what the "derivative work" could be used for. <br />
<br />
Probably most of this could be added in the [[Permissible restrictions]] section too. It would be good to hear other photographers input on this and have a discussion on ways to make this work. [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] 21:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Time scope and revocability of licenses, etc... ==<br />
<br />
The present definition is unclear concerning <br />
<br />
* Licenses allowing free use for a definite time scope (1 year only, 1 week only)<br />
<br />
* Licenses with a "for the time being", or "until revoked" clause.<br />
<br />
The only point where the present definition clearly rejects revocability is in connection with patents : ''should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and <u>irrevocable</u> royalty-free grant...'' but there is no such condition in connection with copyright.<br />
<br />
I suggest that future versions of the definition should address this concern. <br />
<br />
I have also questions concerning the space scope : what about non-worldwide, free-in-only-a-few-countries licenses ?<br />
<br />
[[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 04:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I made a small edit in the unstable version, to reflect this concern : ([http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=prev&oldid=5358 diff]). [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 04:48, 20 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Compare with the following statement in the definition of « free software » : ''In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.'' [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The Free Software Definition, by the Free Software Foundation]. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 20:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:If I understand the intent correctly, it seems to me that it would help to express the "without limitation" principle by explicitly stating that rights granted by any free license should be both '''''perpetual''''' (non-expiring) and '''''non-revocable'''''. Do all of the current stock licenses explicitly express this? [[User:Danorton|Danorton]] 17:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I agree that this is a very important clarification to make in the definition. It seems that wording to this effect has been added and removed from various versions of the official definition over the years (and is absent in the current version). I'm not sure why its inclusion has been inconsistent, as it seems to have been part of the unstable version consistently since at least 2006. Perhaps Erik could respond to this, as he is the person who has actually implemented most of the version updates. Is there a reason we don't want to define free licenses as unrevokable or is it just that most people consider this to be obvious? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: I don't recall that this has been added before - perhaps I missed it? If you can find it, could you provide a diff? I don't have any problem with adding this to the definition, but I'll post the issue to our mailing list so other people are aware of it as well.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::The very specific language that has been in the unstable version for a while has never been in this version, as far as I know, but the statement that the freedoms "should be available to anyone, anywhere, '''anytime'''" was in both version 0.9 and version 1.0, but was stripped out of version 1.1. This led to a discussion about whether that phrase should be included in the commons licensing policy or not. Personally, I don't think the sentence itself is that important, but the definition should specifically address the issue of revokability somewhere. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Agree that "perpetual" and "irrevocable" should be added. Popular free licenses already do so, and the fear that the author can revoke the work any time and thereby disrupt your financial plans can be a very large barrier to reuse for e.g. a book publisher. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Permanent URLs ==<br />
<br />
This needs stable URLs fast. It is impossible to link to it from a legal document as long as the text can change at any time. [[Definition/1.0]] and [[Definition/1.1]] should contain unchanging texts, and so should [[Definition/1.0/de]] etc. And they should be referred from the header so readers realize [[Definition]] is not a stable text.<br />
<br />
(Also, could someone clean out the porn ads from the mailing list home page? Or at least remove the link to them from the site notice?) --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 04:00, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I don't know if this is what you need, but there is a "permanent link" in the toolbox, in the left margin. However, "The definition itself is not a license", so be careful not to use in a legal document as if it were a license. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 07:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The definition is inteded to be used in legal documents to define what kinds of licenses are acceptable. That's how the Wikimedia Foundation used it in their [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy licensing policy resolution], and IIRC this site was originally created as part of that resolution. And the link to this definition (which plays quite a fundamental role in the policy) now points to a different text than it did when the resolution was passed. Though it says explicitly 1.0, so the intention is clear there, but even if the reader does realise that he has been sent to the wrong page (whch does not exactly create an air of professionalism btw), he has no idea where to find the tight text. (Keep in mind that the intended target audience of this site goes much beyond the wiki world, so the reader is not neccessarily wiki-savvy.) When the wording of a document is less cautious and doesn't explicitly name the version, that could lead to even bigger problems. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 20:09, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Tgr, I got your point, you're right that separate versions should be uniquely accessed. This is an easy job to do, and you can help me if you please, as most of the pages are not protected. It is possible to find the precise version before the 1.0->1.1 update and copy it into a subpage, and then exchange links in order to have all readers informed. I will spend some time in the weekend... ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
: I am not able to help for the Korean translation only. I cannot recognize words "version" and "stable" in order to make a precise change in the wordings. For the latin and cyrillic languages, even for Greek, this was an easy job to do. ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 10:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== First sentence ==<br />
<br />
The first sentence of this article currently says:<br />
<br />
''This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose.''<br />
<br />
I propose that it be changed to:<br />
<br />
''This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely applied, studied, copied, modified, and/or distributed, by anyone, for any purpose.''<br />
<br />
I have just added "distributed", which appears in other parts of the article, but is strangely missing in the first sentence. In my opinion, "distributed" is important enough to merit inclusion in the first sentence. --[[User:Antonielly|Antonielly]] 18:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=FAQ&diff=6007
FAQ
2009-05-11T06:09:03Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 60.166.216.201 (Talk) to last version by 85.89.17.141</p>
<hr />
<div>== Is there really a need for this? We already have so many licenses. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content and Expression Definition is not a license, it is a list of conditions under which a work must be available in order to be considered "free". In other words, it is a way to classify existing licenses. At the time the first draft of the definition was published (May 1, 2006), no such definition existed for free content (two definitions existed for free software).<br />
<br />
== So what do I need to put my work under this definition then? ==<br />
<br />
As the definition is not a license, but only classifies which licenses can be considered free, you have to pick one of these [[licenses]] and apply them to your work (usually by attaching a text such as "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license" with a link to the license text). If you want to express your support for free content, you can [[logos and buttons|help us design logos and buttons]].<br />
<br />
== What are the primary uses of this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are two primary goals:<br />
# To bring unity and clarity to the growing free content and free expression movements. We believe that a successful social movement must first define its goals and its vision and then communicate these to others. The definition helps with the first part while logos and other awareness materials can help with the second. Finally, while this website is not a community site in the traditional sense, it may help to bring together people from different free content projects, and could lead to new web sites and organizations specifically targeted at the free content movement.<br />
# To make communications with copyright holders more effective. Often, people state that their work is "free", "open content", or "open access", without qualifying this. The Creative Commons licenses are a good example of this: the Creative Commons logo simply states, generically, "Some Rights Reserved", and you have to click on the logo to find out which ones. It is very common for people to simply say that their work is [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22under+a+Creative+Commons+license%22 "under a Creative Commons license"]. This can mean many things, including, in the extreme cases, licenses which restrict the use of a work to certain world regions, or which forbid both commercial use and derivative works. This definition allows you to simply ask: "Is it ''free content''?". When the answer is "yes", you'll know precisely which rights you have.<br />
<br />
== Aren't you pretty arrogant for wanting to decide for everyone what's free? ==<br />
<br />
We do not attempt to monopolize the definition of "free"; we just define [[Definition|what "free" means according to '''freedomdefined.org''']] only (not to everyone), and we propose this definition as a "default meaning" in discussions to avoid ambiguity, ease communication and make discussions more productive.<br />
<br />
To ensure that this is a reasonable and widely accepted definition, we are basing our work on the existing philosophies of free software and open source, on the existing policies of projects like [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]], and on a strong moral conviction that as many works as reasonably possible should be available to all human beings, as freely as possible. People are welcome to release their works as something other than Free Content or Free Expression. In the short term, most people will. Many will try to use "semi-free" licenses.<br />
<br />
Of course, we do not claim or seek a monopoly on the word "free". You are free (no pun intended) to use these terms as you wish, to argue for a different set of essential freedoms, or to attempt to redirect this definition by working with us. You are welcome to create your own term, defined differently, and use that.<br />
<br />
== Why don't you have any moderators who are professional (NAME PROFESSION)? ==<br />
<br />
It may be that the right person hasn't volunteered yet. More importantly though, it's important to realize that we can't have a professional novelist, and a musician, and a lawyer, and a DJ, and a painter, and a collage artist, and a dancer, etc. There aren't that many spaces for moderators. Of course, we welcome feedback from every individual or group and are especially careful to take into account viewpoints that we think are unrepresented or new.<br />
<br />
With that said, everyone involved in this project, and especially the moderators, produces, consumes, and distributes content or expression every day. While some of the freedoms listed here are freedoms designed primarily for the producers, we are also talking about the consumers of content and working hard to blur the lines between the two groups. We are all stakeholders in the process and we all -- creators, consumers, and most of us that are both -- have a voice that should be heard. The moderators have been picked not because they are particular representative of the world of creators as a group but because they respected, principled, in touch with much larger groups of creators, and willing to take into account others' opinions.<br />
<br />
== But how will people make money under this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are many ways that people make money distributing free content and expression. They tend to differ based on the type of work and many other factors. Of course, the point of this definition is not to list these (although someone could create a page in this wiki to do exactly that). The point is to describe essential freedom. Once we have challenged ourselves to produce and consume content and expression more ethically, it becomes our ''responsibility'' to find ways to do so that are economically sustainable. Unless we challenge ourselves, there is a much lower incentive to ever go out on a limb and try.<br />
<br />
We also want to point out that the exact same question can be asked about the current copyright system. Most authors do not make a substantial amount of money from their works (many do not even make money at all). Some authors do manage to make money, but at the price of totally giving up control of their works to large publishers (especially in the USA, where total transfer of all rights by contract is possible and moral rights do not exist practically). Many artists of high value remained poor during much of their life, because their talent was recognized too late. Thus the question of ''how authors can make money from their work'' is not tied to the mere licensing model of the work (free vs. not free), but to the economic system surrounding authorship and to the social and cultural conditions of recognition.<br />
<br />
== What about logos? Why do all open source / free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? ==<br />
<br />
Many organisations like Creative Commons, the Open Source Initiative, or Wikimedia like to protect their identity using trademarks and copyrights. It should be noted that relatively few people in these organisations are opposed to copyright ''per se''; in fact, the [[w:copyleft|copyleft]] principle makes use of copyright to protect the freedom of works. The argument of these organisations is not one against copyright, but one for additional freedoms. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, a case can be made that logos and symbols should be freely shared, and that trademarks should be avoided -- taking the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToFork "right to fork"] to an extreme. Under this model, the identity of the project is not protected by law, and anyone can try to assume the same identity by adopting it for a different project. The marketplace of ideas is the final arbiter of success. This is true for the free content logo we're trying to create, which will be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
== What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). This category is legally but also philosophically justified: creation of works - art works, free software works, free hardware design, machine design, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. Various other kinds of commons (like material commons) do not belong to this category.<br />
<br />
Since we are not proposing a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing) but a Definition (which must be based on firm conceptual ground ;-)), trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message would destroy the meaning of the message and transform it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful. <br />
<br />
We encourage other people to try and give a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. But we cannot do it in the framework of this Definition, because the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents.<br />
<br />
== Who wrote this? Who administers the site? ==<br />
<br />
== Why isn't a Non-Commercial restriction considered free?==<br />
Some ideas:<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/11/08/why-the-nc-permission-culture-simply-doesnt-work/ Why the NC permission culture simply doesn't work]<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/24/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft/ Non-commercial ShareAlike is not copyleft]<br />
* [http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2006/chapter_06/osjb2006-06-02-en-moeller.pdf ''Erik Möller'', The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons NC License]<br />
<br />
==Why isn't a NoDerivatives restriction considered free?==</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Role-playing_games&diff=5965
Portal talk:Role-playing games
2009-05-05T00:02:52Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 64.56.73.226 (Talk) to last version by 94.142.128.140</p>
<hr />
<div>Separated previous contribution into a separate section, instead of being italicised.<br />
<br />
Also there seems to be scope to add further hyperlinks to other sections of freedomdefined.org and/or external sites, I haven't pursued this as yet.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 00:30, 10 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Icosahedral ==<br />
<br />
This is NC and so is not free by the site's definition. I've deleted the link. If the game moves to a Free licence it should be reinstated -<br />
<br />
* [http://liquidmateria.info/wiki/Icosahedral Icosahedral RPG] the license should be valid for Free Cultural Works but discuss modifications first or make your own copy to modify however you want to, don't edit it directly on the wiki without permission.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]]<br />
<br />
* The default license for that wiki is NC, but Icosahedral doesn't use the default license. The Icosahedral RPG license is available at: [http://liquidmateria.info/wiki/Talk:Icosahedral Talk:Icosahedral]. It is semi-copyleft, in that copyleft only applies to parts having to do with game rules, other parts (such as "fluff", for example a description of what elves like to do in their spare time, but nothing to do with game rules) are non-copyleft, although if it is included in the standard Icosahedral document it is still free. It is even explicitly compatible with the GNU GPL v3 (allows you to convert to GNU GPL v3), in order to ensure that it is a free license. However, please make your own copy of the Icosahedral rules if you want to make drastic changes to the Icosahedral rules. --[[User:24.207.48.53|24.207.48.53]] 00:43, 6 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Now at the bottom of every page it says "This page is protected by the following license: Icosahedral RPG License" which overrides the default license for the wiki. Tell me if you think this is a free license. If it is, reinstate the link --[[User:24.207.48.53|24.207.48.53]] 20:55, 7 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== OGL ==<br />
<br />
I assume that the Open Gaming License is not free under the Freedom Defined definition because of the "Product Identity" clauses that allow arbitrary words, phrases, images and sections of the work to be declared non-free. <br />
<br />
Would it be possible to come up with a policy for ensuring that games under the OGL are free similar to Wikipedia and Debian's policy on the FDL? FDL immutable sections are similar to product identity. Or does this concede too much?<br />
<br />
Either way it would be good to discuss the OGL here as it predates the CC licences as an example of effective alternative licensing for non-software works. It is also a very interesting case study in how a Free(-ish) license can not only balance social and corporate objectives but make them mutually beneficial.<br />
--[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 14:20, 10 August 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I think "Product Identity" doesn't make it non-free if the "Product Identity" parts are limited to only trademarked phrases and stuff like that. But if sections are "Product Identity" then it really is non-free and shouldn't be listed here. --[[User:24.207.48.53|24.207.48.53]] 19:59, 20 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: It's a difficult one because trademarked phrases would be covered by trademark law anyway. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]]<br />
<br />
== Are you rapid for summer? ==<br />
<br />
Planning on vacation alprompt? I bet no Mexico new zealand urban area for you? lol craving that Swine flu disposition be for gladly!<br />
<br />
== Vsem zdras'te! Nemnogo posmeyat'sya pomogayu ==<br />
<br />
Thank you for this article. Now this article in my rss reader. <br />
FerArorie<br />
<br />
== Swine flu renamed? ==<br />
<br />
Did you guyes finish eating prok because of the flu? I am not a pork fiend but Bacon is calculate one thing in my freezer!<br />
<br />
== It was frightening! Thanks ==<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the web! well-disposed job admins! It takes some use belief me I skilled in<br />
<br />
== Need to download XRumer 5.0 for free! ==<br />
<br />
Hi, my friends!! I want to download software pack XRUMER 5.07 Palladium for free. Have you any download link?<br />
I'm so need this magic program! It's can break captchas automatically! Activate accounts via email automatically too! Absolutely great software! Help me!<br />
And did you hear news - price for XRumer 5.0 Palladium will grow up to $540 after 15 may 2009... And XRumer 2.9 and 3.0 - too old versions, it's cant break modern catpchas and cant break modern anti-bot protections. But XRumer 5.0 Palladium CAN!!!!<br />
So help me for download this great program for free! Thanks!</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=History&diff=5964
History
2009-05-05T00:01:46Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 74.177.60.85 (Talk) to last version by Angela Beesley</p>
<hr />
<div>The [[definition]] was initiated by [[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] as a means to resolve ambiguity about the phrase "free content" in the context of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects Wikimedia project family]. It was inspired by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition]. Helpful feedback was provided during the initial authoring process (in this chronological order) by [http://www.stallman.org Richard Stallman] of the [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation], [http://www.lessig.org/ Lawrence Lessig] of [http://www.creativecommons.org Creative Commons], and [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]], board member of the [http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/ Wikimedia Foundation] and Vice President of [http://www.wikia.com/ Wikia], Inc. [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]], who had been pursuing similar goals (as exemplified in his paper [http://www.google.com/search?q=mako+hill+freedom&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official "Towards a Standard of Freedom"]) quickly joined the project and helped to actively improve the definition even before the launch of the open editing phase, becoming a co-initiator.<br />
<br />
The beginning of the open editing phase was [[Announcement|announced]] on May 1, 2006.</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logos_and_buttons&diff=5670
Logos and buttons
2009-02-10T11:17:36Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by Alaskaballoons (Talk) to last version by Spiritia</p>
<hr />
<div>== Official logo ==<br />
<br />
The official logo of the Definition of Free Cultural Works was designed by [http://falzon.info/ Marc Falzon], and placed in the public domain:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--wikilogo.png]]<br />
<br />
An SVG copy can be found [[Media:Official-logo.svg|here]]<br />
<br />
The logo represents both the diversity of human culture, and the openness and freedom to interact with free cultural works.<br />
<br />
Please feel free to create derivatives of this logo, and [[Special:Upload|upload them]] to this wiki.<br />
<br />
== Buttons == <br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: #ffeeee; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid red; padding: .5em; text-align: center;">Please note that simply adding a button does not license your work in any way. You have to clearly state which license you use. One way of doing that is making the link point to the license, and having an explicit statement "''This work is licensed under the ... license''" below the work.</div><br />
<br />
=== AMYMADE's buttons ===<br />
<br />
The following set of buttons were designed by [http://www.amymade.com/ AMYMADE] with the support of the [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation] and represents our official recommendation:<br />
<br />
[[Image:CCBY_black.png]] [[Image:CCBYSA_black.png]] [[Image:GFDL_black.png]] [[Image:GPL_black.png]] [[Image:LGPL_black.png]] [[Image:PUB_black.png]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:CCBY_red.png]] [[Image:CCBYSA_red.png]] [[Image:GFDL_red.png]] [[Image:GPL_red.png]] [[Image:LGPL_red.png]] [[Image:PUB_red.png]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:CCBY_yellow.png]] [[Image:CCBYSA_yellow.png]] [[Image:GFDL_yellow.png]] [[Image:GPL_yellow.png]] [[Image:LGPL_yellow.png]] [[Image:PUB_yellow.png]]<br />
<br />
These buttons are in the public domain. Which color you use is your choice; we suggest red for music, black for science and software, and yellow for everything else.<br />
<br />
=== Small buttons ===<br />
<br />
This is the cleanest set so far and it comes with a [[:Image:Definition of Free Cultural Works button small.svg|template]].<br />
<br />
[[Image:Attribution button small.png]] [[Image:Sharealike button small.png]] [[Image:GFDL 1.2 button small.png]] [[Image:PD button small.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Inkwina's icons ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:GNU FDL.png]] [[Image:FreeBSD.png]] [[Image:GNU FDL alt.png]] [[Image:CC-BY-SA.png]]<br />
<br />
The svg versions [[:Image:CC-BY-SA.svg|CC-BY-SA.svg]] and [[:Image:GNU_FDL.svg|Image:GNU_FDL.svg]] do not display well online. They where created using Inkscape, and the SVG hasn't been cleaned up. But the [[:Image:Blank button.svg|Blank button.svg]] can be used to generate more buttons. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:01, 22 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
=== Other button styles ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:By-sa-button2.png]] [[Image:By-button.png]] [[Image:Pd-button.png]]<br />
<br />
Slightly different style:<br />
<br />
[[Image:By-sa-button.png]]<br />
<br />
Again a different style - contributed by Jörg Petri:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Pd2.gif]] [[Image:Pd_1.gif]]<br />
<br />
=== License Classification Icons by Terry Hancock ===<br />
<br />
These are meant to be generic analogs to Creative Commons' "license deed" icons (The CC icons are subject to trademark. I intend these icons to be different enough to avoid any trademark dispute or confusion, but similar enough to facilitate communication). Unlike the CC icons, these do not map to particular detailed license modules, but rather indicate general classes of licenses.<br />
<br />
So far, these are the only ones I could think of needing for free licenses, but I am interested in hearing suggestions for what additional requirements we ought to have icons for:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_pd.svg]] "Public Domain" or "No Requirements".<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_by.svg]] "Attribution" requirement.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sa.svg]] "Copyleft" or "Share Alike" requirement.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sc.svg]] "Source Code" requirement.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_drm.svg]] "No DRM/TPM" requirement.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_hard.svg]] "Production Copyleft" (a proposal for effective copyleft on hardware designs)<br />
<br />
I also have some "non-free" icons for license comparison purposes, along with color-coded versions of the above (black="null", green="maximal individual freedom", blue="maximal maintenance of freedom", yellow="semi-free or free within a limited domain", red="not free at all"). I recommend these icons for use where free and non-free licenses will be compared with each other:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_pd.svg]] "Public Domain" (same as above)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_by_grn.svg]] "Attribution"<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sa_blu.svg]] "Copyleft"<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sc_blu.svg]] "Source Code"<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_drm_blu.svg]] "No DRM/TPM"<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_nc.svg]] "Non-Commercial"<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_nd.svg]] "Non-Derivative"<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_arr.svg]] "All Rights Reserved"<br />
<br />
Here are a set of icons representing the Four_freedoms:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_use.svg]] Freedom #1: Use/Performance<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_study.svg]] Freedom #2: Understanding<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_copy.svg]] Freedom #3: Copying and Distribution<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_add.svg]] Freedom #4: Derivatives<br />
<br />
== License description pages ==<br />
<br />
For each license, we will try to create a description page. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/CC-BY-2.5]] - Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5<br />
* [[Licenses/CC-BY-SA-2.5]] - Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 2.5<br />
* [[Licenses/GNU GPL 2]] - GNU General Public License 2<br />
* [[Licenses/GNU FDL 1.2]] - GNU Free Documentation License 1.2<br />
* [[Public domain]]</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=FAQ&diff=5669
FAQ
2009-02-10T11:17:30Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by Alaskaballoons (Talk) to last version by Spiritia</p>
<hr />
<div>== Is there really a need for this? We already have so many licenses. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content and Expression Definition is not a license, it is a list of conditions under which a work must be available in order to be considered "free". In other words, it is a way to classify existing licenses. At the time the first draft of the definition was published (May 1, 2006), no such definition existed for free content (two definitions existed for free software).<br />
<br />
== So what do I need to put my work under this definition then? ==<br />
<br />
As the definition is not a license, but only classifies which licenses can be considered free, you have to pick one of these [[licenses]] and apply them to your work (usually by attaching a text such as "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license" with a link to the license text). If you want to express your support for free content, you can [[logos and buttons|help us design logos and buttons]].<br />
<br />
== What are the primary uses of this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are two primary goals:<br />
# To bring unity and clarity to the growing free content and free expression movements. We believe that a successful social movement must first define its goals and its vision and then communicate these to others. The definition helps with the first part while logos and other awareness materials can help with the second. Finally, while this website is not a community site in the traditional sense, it may help to bring together people from different free content projects, and could lead to new web sites and organizations specifically targeted at the free content movement.<br />
# To make communications with copyright holders more effective. Often, people state that their work is "free", "open content", or "open access", without qualifying this. The Creative Commons licenses are a good example of this: the Creative Commons logo simply states, generically, "Some Rights Reserved", and you have to click on he logo to find out which ones. It is very common for people to simply say that their work is [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22under+a+Creative+Commons+license%22 "under a Creative Commons license"]. This can mean many things, including, in the extreme cases, licenses which restrict the use of a work to certain world regions, or which forbid both commercial use and derivative works. This definition allows you to simply ask: "Is it ''free content''?". When the answer is "yes", you'll know precisely which rights you have.<br />
<br />
== Aren't you pretty arrogant for wanting to decide for everyone what's free? ==<br />
<br />
We are basing our work on the existing philosophies of free software and open source, on the existing policies of projects like [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]], and on a strong moral conviction that as many works as reasonably possible should be available to all human beings, as freely as possible. People are welcome to release their works as something other than Free Content or Free Expression. In the short term, most people will. Many will try to use "semi-free" licenses.<br />
<br />
Of course, we do not claim or seek a monopoly on the word "free". You are free (no pun intended) to use these terms as you wish, to argue for a different set of essential freedoms, or to attempt to redirect this definition by working with us. You are welcome to create your own term, defined differently, and use that.<br />
<br />
== Why don't you have any moderators who are professional (NAME PROFESSION)? ==<br />
<br />
It may be that the right person hasn't volunteered yet. More importantly though, it's important to realize that we can't have a professional novelist, and a musician, and a lawyer, and a DJ, and a painter, and a collage artist, and a dancer, etc. There aren't that many spaces for moderators. Of course, we welcome feedback from every individual or group and are especially careful to take into account viewpoints that we think are unrepresented or new.<br />
<br />
With that said, everyone involved in this project, and especially the moderators, produces, consumes, and distributes content or expression every day. While some of the freedoms listed here are freedoms designed primarily for the producers, we are also talking about the consumers of content and working hard to blur the lines between the two groups. We are all stakeholders in the process and we all -- creators, consumers, and most of us that are both -- have a voice that should be heard. The moderators have been picked not because they are particular representative of the world of creators as a group but because they respected, principled, in touch with much larger groups of creators, and willing to take into account others' opinions.<br />
<br />
== But how will people make money under this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are many ways that people make money distributing free content and expression. They tend to differ based on the type of work and many other factors. Of course, the point of this definition is not to list these (although someone could create a page in this wiki to do exactly that). The point is to describe essential freedom. Once we have challenged ourselves to produce and consume content and expression more ethically, it becomes our ''responsibility'' to find ways to do so that are economically sustainable. Unless we challenge ourselves, there is a much lower incentive to ever go out on a limb and try.<br />
<br />
We also want to point out that the exact same question can be asked about the current copyright system. Most authors do not make a substantial amount of money from their works (many do not even make money at all). Some authors do manage to make money, but at the price of totally giving up control of their works to large publishers (especially in the USA, where total transfer of all rights by contract is possible and moral rights do not exist practically). Many artists of high value remained poor during much of their life, because their talent was recognized too late. Thus the question of ''how authors can make money from their work'' is not tied to the mere licensing model of the work (free vs. not free), but to the economic system surrounding authorship and to the social and cultural conditions of recognition.<br />
<br />
== What about logos? Why do all open source / free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? ==<br />
<br />
Many organisations like Creative Commons, the Open Source Initiative, or Wikimedia like to protect their identity using trademarks and copyrights. It should be noted that relatively few people in these organisations are opposed to copyright ''per se''; in fact, the [[w:copyleft|copyleft]] principle makes use of copyright to protect the freedom of works. The argument of these organisations is not one against copyright, but one for additional freedoms. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, a case can be made that logos and symbols should be freely shared, and that trademarks should be avoided -- taking the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToFork "right to fork"] to an extreme. Under this model, the identity of the project is not protected by law, and anyone can try to assume the same identity by adopting it for a different project. The marketplace of ideas is the final arbiter of success. This is true for the free content logo we're trying to create, which will be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
== What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). This category is legally but also philosophically justified: creation of works - art works, free software works, free hardware design, machine design, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. Various other kinds of commons (like material commons) do not belong to this category.<br />
<br />
Since we are not proposing a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing) but a Definition (which must be based on firm conceptual ground ;-)), trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message would destroy the meaning of the message and transform it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful. <br />
<br />
We encourage other people to try and give a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. But we cannot do it in the framework of this Definition, because the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents.<br />
<br />
== Who wrote this? Who administers the site? ==<br />
<br />
== Why isn't a Non-Commercial restriction considered free?==<br />
Some ideas:<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/11/08/why-the-nc-permission-culture-simply-doesnt-work/ Why the NC permission culture simply doesn't work]<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/24/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft/ Non-commercial ShareAlike is not copyleft]<br />
* [http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2006/chapter_06/osjb2006-06-02-en-moeller.pdf ''Erik Möller'', The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons NC License]<br />
<br />
==Why isn't a NoDerivatives restriction considered free?==</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=5218
Licenses
2008-10-22T04:31:10Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 78.166.2.96 (Talk); changed back to last version by 134.117.137.40</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparison of Licenses ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1" style="width: 100%; text-align: center; border-collapse: collapse;"<br />
! License<br />
! [[#Intended scope|Intended scope]]<br />
! [[#Copyleft|Copyleft]]<br />
! [[#Practical modifiability|Practical modifiability]]<br />
! [[#Attribution|Attribution]]<br />
! [[#Related rights|Related rights]]<br />
! [[#Access control prohibition|Access control prohibition]]<br />
! [[#Worldwide applicability|Worldwide applicability]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Against DRM|Against DRM]]<br />
| Works of art<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| Exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution|Creative Commons Attribution]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations <br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike|Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Design Science License|Design Science License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally science data<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]<br />
| Works of art<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Exact translations (French law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU Lesser General Public License|GNU Lesser General Public License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally Software<br />
| {{partial|Weak}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU General Public License|GNU General Public License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally Software<br />
| {{yes|Strong}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Version 3 prohibits "Tivoisation" in certain cases}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Lizenz für Freie Inhalte|Lizenz für Freie Inhalte]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Unknown (license text is German)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| Software<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Criteria for choosing a license ==<br />
<br />
We explain hereafter some of the criteria which may influence your choice of a free content license. Those criteria are not inherently good or bad. The importance of each criteria depends on the context (for example the kind of work, or the kind of collaborative process you want to encourage), and on personal preferences.<br />
<br />
This list is not meant to be exhaustive. Other aspects may be important, like the clarity of the wording of a license, or the philosophy which is defended by its authors, or whether the license is surrounded by an active community of authors.<br />
<br />
Endly, we want to stress that, '''before choosing a license, you must read the license text carefully.''' No summary, no matter how attractive or reassuring, can replace detailed understanding of the license itself.<br />
<br />
=== Intended scope ===<br />
<br />
Some licenses strive to be as generic as is humanly (or rather, legally) possible. Others deliberately focus on a specific domain of creation, like software, or documentation. When a license has such a focus, it doesn't mean that it cannot be used for other kinds of works, but that its main area of use (and thus its social recognition as a trustable license) is clearly bounded.<br />
<br />
For example, the GNU GPL can be used for many kinds of works, but its main area of recognition is software.<br />
<br />
=== Copyleft ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sa.svg|48px]]<br />
<br />
When a work is "copylefted", it means all derived works (even if they mix in other works as well) must be distributed under the same terms (usually the same exact license) as the original work. Conversely, a non-copylefted work can be distributed under different terms, and even be rendered non-free.<br />
<br />
Therefore, using a copyleft license pretty much guarantees that users of subsequent works (for example modified copies) will be granted the same essential freedoms. On the other hand, a copyleft license can also limit opportunities for re-use, because most copyleft licenses are not compatible between each other. This is why people sometimes prefer non-copyleft license, depending on the work and the kind of practices they want to encourage.<br />
<br />
''ShareAlike'' is a synonym of ''copyleft'' in the Creative Commons vocabulary.<br />
<br />
Strong copyleft also forbids linking or integration the subject work into larger works/projects that are not also licensed with a license with compatible copyleft terms. Weak copyleft lacks such a 'viral copyleft' requirement.<br />
<br />
=== Practical modifiability ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sc.svg|48px]]<br />
<br />
Although all free licenses give you the ''legal'' right to modify, not all of them try to specify how modifiability of the work is ''practically'' enforced. [[Source Code|Requiring modifiability]] is important, especially for works which can be distributed under a completely opaque format such as software binary code (''"object code"'').<br />
<br />
The licenses which require practical modifiability usually define a notion of ''source code'', ''source data'' or similar. The GNU FDL defines ''transparent copies'' and disallows use of technological protection measures (TPM). The Creative Commons licenses disallow use of TPMs.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_by.svg|48px]]<br />
<br />
Requiring attribution means that authorship for the work must be recognized in any circumstances. In the context of derived works (modified copies), this includes the initial as well as subsequent authors and contributors.<br />
<br />
It is often stated that all licenses can implicitly require attribution, as they mandate that the copyright notice must be kept intact when distributing copies. By including up-to-date authorship information in the copyright notice, one can indeed forbid subsequent works to erase that information. However, future contributions to the work are not guaranteed to be also credited using such a mechanism; indeed, it is based on the good will of authors (or maintainers) of subsequent works. Having an Attribution requirement prevents this from happening and mandates that all subsequent works have the same policy in mentioning authorship.<br />
<br />
Attribution is a double-edged sword, as it may become a heavy burden to list all contributors for projects which imply seamless and massive collaboration (like Wikipedia). For many works it is, however, a reasonable requirement.<br />
<br />
=== Related rights ===<br />
<br />
''Related rights'' concern not the mere copying and modification of the work, but its use in a derived manner: for example, performing the work, displaying it in public or private, broadcasting, webcasting, etc. Related rights exist for various areas of creation (songs, theater...); they often belong to people other than the authors of the work, such as perfomers, producers of phonograms, etc.<br />
<br />
Some free content licenses take care to also grant related rights to the recipient of the work. There may even be a [[#Copyleft|copyleft]] provision which states that related works (interpretations, performances, recordings) must be released under the same license as the work.<br />
<br />
=== Access control prohibition ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_drm.svg|48px]]<br />
<br />
Some licenses contain a clause, which forbids to control access to the licensed content.<br />
In some licenses this clause concerns only the licensee (licensor can use access control systems to forbid not granted rights).<br />
<br />
=== Worldwide applicability ===<br />
<br />
When distributing a free work over the world, it is important to understand how people from other countries will be able to reuse this work.<br />
<br />
License writers have adopted three different strategies regarding the internationalization of their licenses:<br />
* ''same license for everyone'': only the original license text (often in English) is given legal value, and translations may be provided purely for information purposes;<br />
* ''exact translations'': translations of the original license text are provided, which all have legal value; those translations have exactly the same clauses and wording as the original text;<br />
* ''local adaptations'': the license is rewritten according to each national legal system.<br />
<br />
'''Attention: some licenses use a specific national law: so you cannot interpret the license through your national law, but through the law specified in the license.'''<br />
For example, Free Art License uses French law (you must pay attention to French law also if the license is written in English, German or other languages).<br />
<br />
The two first schemes ensure that everyone is given the same rights. In the third scheme (local adaptations), similarity and equivalence of the different versions should be carefully examined.<br />
<br />
According to advocates of the adaptation scheme, licenses must be rewritten in order to cope with the peculiarities of the various legal systems. This position is held by the Creative Commons organization.<br />
<br />
According to opponents of the adaptation scheme, having different national versions of a license presents the risk to break trust and interoperability. Also, they stress that the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works] provides a framework which, with careful drafting, allows to write internationally applicable license texts. This position is held by the Free Software Foundation and by the Free Art License authors.<br />
<br />
== List of licenses ==<br />
<br />
=== Against DRM ===<br />
<br />
* current version: 2.0<br />
* author: [http://www.freecreations.org Free Creations]<br />
* reference URL (English): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2.html <br />
* reference URL (Italian): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_it.html<br />
* reference URL (Spanish - Castilian): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_es1.html<br />
* reference URL (Spanish - Catalan): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_es2.html<br />
* reference URL (French): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_fr.html<br />
<br />
=== BSD-like non-copyleft licenses ===<br />
<br />
In parallel with the set of GNU licenses (including the [[#GNU GPL|GNU GPL]]), the [[Existing Movements#Free Software|free software]] world evolved a number of very simple non-copyleft licenses. These licenses are so simple that no dedicated text is needed to expose the terms of the license. To reuse such a license, you must take its text and replace the copyright notice with your own. Since these licenses are non-copyleft, changing the license text in such a way does not prevent reuse between works from happening.<br />
<br />
Regardless of their wording, these licenses always grant the user very broad rights, including the right to modify and distribute without supplying any source code. Also, their concise wording makes them simple to understand and unambiguous as to their effects.<br />
<br />
These licenses are often called "BSD-like" because the first occurence of such a license has been the license under which the Berkeley Software Distribution (one of the first free versions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix Unix]) was shipped to users.<br />
<br />
One should distinguish the original BSD license with its controversial ''[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html advertising clause]'' from the revised BSD license that does not have the advertising clause. <br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons Attribution ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: CC-BY<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: CC-BY-SA<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
<!-- <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"><br />
<Work rdf:about="urn:sha1:XCKBXFCIAIKUOW2D5JXEH3C5GFHUVHHL"><dc:date>2008</dc:date><dc:title>yung buttah</dc:title><dc:description></dc:description><dc:rights><Agent><dc:title>intro</dc:title></Agent></dc:rights><dc:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Sound" /><license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/" /></Work><br />
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/"><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/DerivativeWorks" /><prohibits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/CommercialUse" /><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/ShareAlike" /><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice" /></License><br />
</rdf:RDF> --><br />
<br />
=== Design Science License ===<br />
<br />
* ''Not maintained anymore''<ref></ref><br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
=== FreeBSD Documentation License ===<br />
<br />
* author: [http://www.freebsd.org/ FreeBSD Project]<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html]<br />
<br />
Although especially written for the FreeBSD project, this license shows you how to draft a very simple non-copyleft license for documentation works.<br />
<br />
=== Free Art License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: License Arte Libre, FAL, LAL<br />
* Current version: 1.3<br />
* author: [http://artlibre.org/ Copyleft Attitude]<br />
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ License text (English, version 1.2)]<br />
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/ License text (French)]<br />
<br />
=== GNU Free Documentation License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: GNU FDL, GFDL, FDL<br />
* Current version: 1.2<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
==== Invariant sections ====<br />
<br />
''Invariant sections'' are a special provision of the GFDL which, if used, prevent anyone from modifying the parts of the work which are defined as "invariant". The Free Software Foundation finds it useful to protect some special "non-functional" parts of the work, like a statement of intent (the motivation for invariant sections was, allegedly, to prevent the GNU Manifesto to be removed or modified in GNU documentations).<br />
<br />
We believe, however, that freedom should apply to all kind of works, and that what is "functional" in one situation can be "artistic" in another - and vice-versa. Consequently, a work using invariant sections to forbid some kinds of modifications to the work cannot be considered completely free.<br />
<br />
Unless additional permissions are granted, all FDL works contain unmodifiable sections which aren't called ''Invariant Sections'', such as a copy of the license embedded in the document itself.<br />
<br />
=== GNU General Public License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: GNU GPL, GPL<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
* Author: [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
The GNU GPL is, according to various statistics, probably the most used free software license. It was also the first license to implement the concept of [[#Copyleft|copyleft]], guaranteeing that "GPL'ed" free software cannot become, or take part in, non-free software.<br />
<br />
Although the GPL is primarily intended for software programs, it is worded so as to apply to many different kinds of works. The main condition for the GPL to be applicable to a type of work is that it admits the notion of a ''preferred form of a work for making modifications to it'' (be it source code in a computer language, music score notation, digital graphics under a format retaining structure, etc.). For example, there are many occurences of text or graphics released under the GPL.<br />
<br />
=== Lizenz für Freie Inhalte ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: LFFI<br />
* [http://www.neppstar.net/webstar/freieinhalte-webstar.html License Text (German)]<br />
<br />
AFAIK only used by the german portal neppstar for free music and video. Anyway, it seems to be a valid free license.<br />
<br />
=== MIT License ===<br />
<br />
* author: MIT<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/mit-license.php http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/mit-license.php]<br />
<br />
This license is arguably the simplest form of the BSD-like licenses for software. All the license, except for the no-warranty statement, is condensed in two short paragraphs.<br />
<br />
There are variants, like the [http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php current BSD license] which has an additional provision forbidding endorsement of derived works using the name of the original authors.<br />
<br />
=== Commentary on non-free licenses ===<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/NC|Essay about the Creative Commons non-commercial restriction]]</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:FAQ&diff=5216
Talk:FAQ
2008-10-22T04:29:05Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Talk:بنت فلسطين moved to Talk:FAQ over redirect: revert</p>
<hr />
<div>re: What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos?<br />
<br />
<br />
To my mind, the "main" or "proper" use of a trademark is to enable to "customer" to know who he is dealing with. Allowing a free for all use of trademarks and logos would negate these benefits to the customers" (I will try and word this better later.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have pondered recently the possibility of dual trademarks, one freely usable and one protected. Text versus graphic or logo based. So if you forked project foo, you could still call yours foo, but you would need to develop a new logo or graphical trademark.<br />
<br />
Does anyone see any merit to this idea at all?<br />
--[[User:Zotz|Zotz]] 01:23, 10 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I have added a few paragraphs in the FAQ itself. I hope nobody minds. Also, I apologize for the likely English mistakes in those additions!<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 04:23, 10 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== How Will People Make Money? ==<br />
<br />
There are two logical errors in the argument that Freedom prevents people making their fortunes like they all do under proprietary culture. :-)<br />
<br />
The first is that very few people make any money under proprietary culture. Even relatively well-known artists and musicians will not make a living off reproduction rights or sales of their work.<br />
<br />
The second is that Freedom is more important than maximising profit for middlemen.<br />
<br />
It is good to tackle the question of making money, but it is not good to concede the grounds of the debate to the middlemen whose usurous control of "content" is challenged by Freedom.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:55, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Some ways to make money: via knowledge services such as being paid to do translations, localisations, remixes, and other derived works, distribution (e.g. on alternative media to people without Internet access), packaging and selling collections of free resources and offering professional services (e.g. training and support) - all the resources and enhancements remain free/libre. [Kim Tucker 30 Oct 2006].<br />
<br />
== What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? ==<br />
<br />
For the same reason the FSF think it's acceptible to have invariant sections in documentation: they think it serves their agenda, which is freedom within a particular domain. Software, not trademarks. <br />
<br />
And they may have a point. Identity and reputation may be important, and may trump certain other freedoms. Trademarks should be covered by extensive Fair Use, which may require legal reform rather than licenses. There should also be a Free trademark license, just one copyleft one or perhaps a BSD-style one as well. But no NonCommercial or NoDerivs ones. <br />
<br />
--[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 20:04, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I too have commented on this above: trademark, used properly, should be for the protection of the "buyer" in the market. So that a person can know who they are dealing with. Please comment on the two trademark idea, one free which rides with the project, on not-free which rides with the developer group.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Zotz|Zotz]] 15:29, 05 Mar 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
What about Logos? While it is true that Logos can, and ideally should, be free, the issue of identity need to be given serious thought. In this case I would envisage a Licence which AFAIK is very absent from the choice of pre-fab licences currently available. This would remove the freedom to use, but would allow the freedom to copy and modify. This might sound like a contradiction at first, but makes sense for the specific case of logos. Essentially it would allow you to use the logo in all the ways that a free Licence would, except as a logo identifying an activity other than that for which it was designed. If say, the CC logos where licensed in such a manner it would make the logo I designed [[Media:CC-BY-SA.svg]] acceptable (BTW, should those be removed from this site, or do they constitute fair use by way of a bad example). Whether such a theoretical Licence would be "free" is a matter for discussion. But, until using a free logo of a free project to pass off another project with different aims as one and the same becomes illegal under a "Digital Identity Theft Act (2097)" some form of protection will be needed. As unfortunate as it might sound Sometimes freedom is best served by restricting it (e.g. prison. Lets hope such measures are only temporary, even if long term.<br />
<br />
This is not to say that the definitions logo should not be PD. The message sent by this choice is strong, and is wroth the risk of some confusion, when (rather then if) someone tries to use it for some pass of another project which is detrimental to our aims as this very project. BUT, I do think it would be counter-productive if this definition implied that ALL publicly visible content ought to be free, no matter what ones personal beliefs on the matter are. The freedom to do the "wrong" thing is an important freedom too (of course with the associated consequences)<br />
<br />
(see also [[Talk:Definition#.22god-like_creators.22.3F]])<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 18:30, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too. ==<br />
<br />
See the [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition]. But spectrum is different from grains (seed rights, which could do with a license) and genetics (which is basically data) as it is a limited resource.<br />
<br />
== Moral rights ==<br />
<br />
The issue of moral rights has come up several times on Wikimedia Commons. Can somebody please add an FAQ entry to discuss whether and how much moral rights restrict freedom and what the effect on the ‘free’/‘not free’ status of a work is? —[[:commons:User:xyzzy_n|xyzzy]]<sub>[[:commons:User talk:xyzzy_n|n]]</sub> from Commons 09:04, 19 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Broken link ==<br />
<br />
I tried to click on the link to http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/11/08/why-the-nc-permission-culture-simply-doesnt-work/ [1] but I got a "404 Not Found" error squawk. I also was not able to access (30-Jul-2008) the web site http://robmyers.org/ [2]; In fact, I googled [2], and the first "hit" was [2], but even the "cached" copy seemed to be a broken link. What is going on? (does my browser have the flu? It is Firefox 3.0.1). Thanks, [[User:Mike Schwartz|Mike Schwartz]] 17:21, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
By the way, http://web.archive.org/ does have some copies of some info from http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/ , [see e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20070630005855/http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/], but I was not able to find the content that the link called "[1]" above is supposed to be pointing to. Maybe [[User:Rob Myers]] could find it. Either it is not out there, or (INclusive or) I am an inept searcher... [[User:Mike Schwartz|Mike Schwartz]] 17:26, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I did finally find a copy of the "de-reference"; it was in the google cache at<br />
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:uauKh1wctwEJ:www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/11/08/why-the-nc-permission-culture-simply-doesnt-work/+rob+myers+weblog+2006+11&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us<br />
...however, since it might not stay there for long, I also "cached" it on my hard drive. Is there a place on the web, that would be better to link to? (than [1]?) cheers, [[User:Mike Schwartz|Mike Schwartz]] 18:31, 30 July 2008 (EDT)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=FAQ&diff=5214
FAQ
2008-10-22T04:29:05Z
<p>Angela Beesley: بنت فلسطين moved to FAQ over redirect: revert</p>
<hr />
<div>== Is there really a need for this? We already have so many licenses. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content and Expression Definition is not a license, it is a list of conditions under which a work must be available in order to be considered "free". In other words, it is a way to classify existing licenses. At the time the first draft of the definition was published (May 1, 2006), no such definition existed for free content (two definitions existed for free software).<br />
<br />
== So what do I need to put my work under this definition then? ==<br />
<br />
As the definition is not a license, but only classifies which licenses can be considered free, you have to pick one of these [[licenses]] and apply them to your work (usually by attaching a text such as "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license" with a link to the license text). If you want to express your support for free content, you can [[logos and buttons|help us design logos and buttons]].<br />
<br />
== What are the primary uses of this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are two primary goals:<br />
# To bring unity and clarity to the growing free content and free expression movements. We believe that a successful social movement must first define its goals and its vision and then communicate these to others. The definition helps with the first part while logos and other awareness materials can help with the second. Finally, while this website is not a community site in the traditional sense, it may help to bring together people from different free content projects, and could lead to new web sites and organizations specifically targeted at the free content movement.<br />
# To make communications with copyright holders more effective. Often, people state that their work is "free", "open content", or "open access", without qualifying this. The Creative Commons licenses are a good example of this: the Creative Commons logo simply states, generically, "Some Rights Reserved", and you have to click on he logo to find out which ones. It is very common for people to simply say that their work is [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22under+a+Creative+Commons+license%22 "under a Creative Commons license"]. This can mean many things, including, in the extreme cases, licenses which restrict the use of a work to certain world regions, or which forbid both commercial use and derivative works. This definition allows you to simply ask: "Is it ''free content''?". When the answer is "yes", you'll know precisely which rights you have.<br />
<br />
== Aren't you pretty arrogant for wanting to decide for everyone what's free? ==<br />
<br />
We are basing our work on the existing philosophies of free software and open source, on the existing policies of projects like [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]], and on a strong moral conviction that as many works as reasonably possible should be available to all human beings, as freely as possible. People are welcome to release their works as something other than Free Content or Free Expression. In the short term, most people will. Many will try to use "semi-free" licenses.<br />
<br />
Of course, we do not claim or seek a monopoly on the word "free". You are free (no pun intended) to use these terms as you wish, to argue for a different set of essential freedoms, or to attempt to redirect this definition by working with us. You are welcome to create your own term, defined differently, and use that.<br />
<br />
== Why don't you have any moderators who are professional (NAME PROFESSION)? ==<br />
<br />
It may be that the right person hasn't volunteered yet. More importantly though, it's important to realize that we can't have a professional novelist, and a musician, and a lawyer, and a DJ, and a painter, and a collage artist, and a dancer, etc. There aren't that many spaces for moderators. Of course, we welcome feedback from every individual or group and are especially careful to take into account viewpoints that we think are unrepresented or new.<br />
<br />
With that said, everyone involved in this project, and especially the moderators, produces, consumes, and distributes content or expression every day. While some of the freedoms listed here are freedoms designed primarily for the producers, we are also talking about the consumers of content and working hard to blur the lines between the two groups. We are all stakeholders in the process and we all -- creators, consumers, and most of us that are both -- have a voice that should be heard. The moderators have been picked not because they are particular representative of the world of creators as a group but because they respected, principled, in touch with much larger groups of creators, and willing to take into account others' opinions.<br />
<br />
== But how will people make money under this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are many ways that people make money distributing free content and expression. They tend to differ based on the type of work and many other factors. Of course, the point of this definition is not to list these (although someone could create a page in this wiki to do exactly that). The point is to describe essential freedom. Once we have challenged ourselves to produce and consume content and expression more ethically, it becomes our ''responsibility'' to find ways to do so that are economically sustainable. Unless we challenge ourselves, there is a much lower incentive to ever go out on a limb and try.<br />
<br />
We also want to point out that the exact same question can be asked about the current copyright system. Most authors do not make a substantial amount of money from their works (many do not even make money at all). Some authors do manage to make money, but at the price of totally giving up control of their works to producers or corporations (especially in the USA, where total transfer of all rights by contract is possible and moral rights do not exist practically). Many artists of high value remained poor during much of their life, because their talent was recognized too late. Thus the question of ''how authors can make money from their work'' is not tied to the mere licensing model of the work (free vs. not free), but to the economic system surrounding authorship and to the social and cultural conditions of recognition.<br />
<br />
== What about logos? Why do all open source / free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? ==<br />
<br />
Many organisations like Creative Commons, the Open Source Initiative, or Wikimedia like to protect their identity using trademarks and copyrights. It should be noted that relatively few people in these organisations are opposed to copyright ''per se''; in fact, the [[w:copyleft|copyleft]] principle makes use of copyright to protect the freedom of works. The argument of these organisations is not one against copyright, but one for additional freedoms. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, a case can be made that logos and symbols should be freely shared, and that trademarks should be avoided -- taking the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToFork "right to fork"] to an extreme. Under this model, the identity of the project is not protected by law, and anyone can try to assume the same identity by adopting it for a different project. The marketplace of ideas is the final arbiter of success. This is true for the free content logo we're trying to create, which will be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
== What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). This category is legally but also philosophically justified: creation of works - art works, free software works, free hardware design, machine design, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. Various other kinds of commons (like material commons) do not belong to this category.<br />
<br />
Since we are not proposing a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing) but a Definition (which must be based on firm conceptual ground ;-)), trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message would destroy the meaning of the message and transform it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful. <br />
<br />
We encourage other people to try and give a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. But we cannot do it in the framework of this Definition, because the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents.<br />
<br />
== Who wrote this? Who administers the site? ==<br />
<br />
== Why isn't a Non-Commercial restriction considered free?==<br />
Some ideas:<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/11/08/why-the-nc-permission-culture-simply-doesnt-work/ Why the NC permission culture simply doesn't work]<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/24/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft/ Non-commercial ShareAlike is not copyleft]<br />
* [http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2006/chapter_06/osjb2006-06-02-en-moeller.pdf ''Erik Möller'', The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons NC License]<br />
<br />
==Why isn't a NoDerivatives restriction considered free?==</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Awareness&diff=5213
Awareness
2008-10-22T04:28:58Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by Ameen (Talk); changed back to last version by Angela Beesley</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Free Content Definition at Wikimania.jpg|thumb|The Eye of Sauron sees all: DFCW title slide at Wikimania 2006]]<br />
<br />
==August 2006==<br />
;Wikimania <br />
:The DFCW was presented at [http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org Wikimania 2006] by initiators [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] and [[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]].<br />
<br />
;Commonwealth of Learning <br />
:[http://www.col.org/colweb/site/pid/4042 Sir John Daniel], President and Chief Executive Officer of the Commonwealth of Learning, recommends using DFCW licenses for Open Educational Resources<br />
<br />
;Churchill Club of Australia <br />
:[http://www.churchillclub.org.au/23.asp?eventId=99 Future Directions for Free Content] by [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]]<br />
<br />
==March 2007==<br />
<br />
;Free Software Foundation<br />
:[http://www.fsf.org/associate/meetings/2007 Defining Free Culture] presented at Associate Member Meeting by [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]]<br />
<br />
;Wikimedia Foundation<br />
:Adopted as a definition of Free Content by the Wikimedia Foundation for its [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy licensing policy]<br />
<br />
== February 2008 ==<br />
<br />
; Creative Commons<br />
: The following licenses are identified as being compliant with the DFCW:<br />
: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA]<br />
: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC-BY]</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Portal:Index&diff=5212
Portal:Index
2008-10-22T04:28:25Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by Pegawai (Talk); changed back to last version by Spiritia</p>
<hr />
<div>{{portals}}<br />
'''Portals''' are ways for groups of like-minded individuals to join and describe the principles of the [[definition]] in their own words, to collect resources, and to discuss. Be creative in editing -- they don't have to appeal to anyone but the group of people they are meant for. You are free to link to non-free resources which you think should be free, but be sure to emphasize the distinction.<br />
<br />
* [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]<br />
* [[Portal:News]]<br />
* [[Portal:Open media]] which allow Free Cultural Works to be spread!<br />
* [[Portal:Science]]<br />
* [[Portal:Music]]<br />
* [[Portal:Theatre]]<br />
* [[Portal:Software]]<br />
* [[Portal:Movies]]<br />
* [[Portal:Comics]]<br />
* [[Portal:Role-playing games]]<br />
* [[Portal:Art]]<br />
* [[Portal:Educational Materials]]<br />
* [[Portal:Novels]]<br />
* [[Portal:Poetry]]<br />
* [[Portal:Videogames content]]<br />
* [[Portal:Maths]]<br />
* [[Portal:Clubes Recreativos - Português]]<br />
* ''[{{SERVER}}/index.php?title=Portal:Index&action=edit Add yours!]''</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&diff=5172
MediaWiki:Sitenotice
2008-10-19T11:31:22Z
<p>Angela Beesley: 1.1</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Version 1.1 of the [[definition]] has been released. Please [http://groups.google.com/group/freeculturalworks/ join our discussion list], contribute [[translations]], and help us with the design of [[logos and buttons]] to identify free cultural works and licenses!'''</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=5167
Talk:Definition
2008-10-18T07:12:16Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 170.235.0.112 (Talk); changed back to last version by 194.160.34.77</p>
<hr />
<div>== What about the applicable law? ==<br />
<br />
If a license has a clause about the applicable law, is the license free?<br />
In my opinion, this clause is a problem because only the people that know a certain law can understand license's implied sides.<br />
<br />
: I think CC are working on licenses covered by Berne/WIPO law only. But a license needs a jurisdiction to avoid confusion or argument over terms and meaning, so in this case having a jurisdiction may protect freedom. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 20:06, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== First Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
I had some issues with the definition of free content here. Firstly, the document attempts to define "free content" as so many have done in the past, yet there is no clear definition of what is and isn't free content in the "free content movement" you discuss. It concerns me that a definition is being created in isolation from the wider community without proper discussion.<br />
<br />
I see the definition here models itself on the free software definition, but misses several important and fundamental aspects:<br />
<br />
How does the definition handle digital works (such as images, documents, etc) versus non-digitual works (such as hard-copy books, paintings, sculptures, etc)?<br />
<br />
How should digital works be treated? A digital work, such as a wordprocessor document, can be viewed in two ways: firstly, as a work in and of itself, i.e. content, but also as a piece of software itself that can display a final work. Should you only have the freedom to study a work (content), or should you also have the freedom to study how a work was created (software)?<br />
<br />
The definition talks about the freedom to make and release (distribute?) modifications but it doesn't say anything about source copies of work. I can think of several examples where the freedom to make modifications can be provided, but without a source copy of a work (i.e. in the format preferred for making modifications) making modifications could be prohibitive:<br />
<br />
* Protected PDF - sure, decrypting such a PDF is possible but its a) tricky to export a PDF to a format that can be modified with all the information intact (images, tables, etc), and b) it may be illegal to decrypt protected PDFs in certain juristictions (DMCA?)<br />
* Text content as image files - a user could allow users the freedom to modify his written works but only distribute them in image format. It is difficult for downstream users to then extract the text content<br />
<br />
You also talk about "free content licenses" where you should really be talking about free content works: a license enables a free content work, but<br />
<br />
Free experession is not the same as free content: you can have the right to free expresssion without having free content, and free content does not guarantee free expression.<br />
<br />
I hope this is helpful. --[[User:Rgladwell|Rgladwell]] 20:25, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for your comments. If you don't mind, I will move them to [[Talk:Definition/Unstable]] and respond there, just to have all comments in one place. First thoughts: You raise a very good point. Is it possible for something to be free content without the "source code" (or something equivalent) being available? Under the current definition, it is. Perhaps we need to find a wording that requires source availabiliy where such sources are essential to modifying the work. More later,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:42, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I've dispatched some of the comments into their own sections in Definition/Unstable. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:16, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Is there somewhere I can sign? -rhY-<br />
<br />
::In terms of source requirements, should it be more along the lines of source must be supplied where it existed in the making of the derivative and in the case of simple copies, if source was available for the original?<br />
<br />
Wow ... you even frame/structure Talk?! ... meh. Anyhow, ''nota'': you have Definition as your default index (wrong ... on basic principle, wrong ... you program? think trampolene) but Definition links to the rest of the site very very poorly. --BenTrem [[User:68.148.26.220|68.148.26.220]] 01:07, 25 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== versioning ==<br />
License 333 and version 0.66 -- it is a sign! Excellent.<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Open Knowledge Definition ==<br />
<br />
Last september/october the [http://www.okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation] 'ported' the Open Source Definiton to produce the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition] ([http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html full text]).<br />
<br />
This came out of various discussions with people working on open geodata, open access, and open databases of scientific data. As I wrote then:<br />
<br />
"The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) provides an answer to the question: what is open knowledge? It puts forward, in a simple and clear manner, principles that define open knowledge and which open knowledge licenses must satisfy.<br />
<br />
The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access' journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential blurring of what is open and what is not.<br />
<br />
In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition, by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in achieving these ends."<br />
<br />
I therefore think this new initiative is a big step forward at a time, when at least to judge from my experience of debates about the CC license at Free Culture UK, there is no clear consensus about terms such as 'Free Content' (and therefore no consensus about the norms of the community).<br />
<br />
Given the common interest in these issues I'd very much like to get further involved in the FCED -- and parhaps also look at a way to merge the OKD and the FCED.<br />
<br />
--RufusPollock<br />
<br />
== My take ==<br />
<br />
:''"Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other works do not benefit from artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely."''<br />
<br />
I think this needs some revising. Production and quality do not benefit from artificial scarcity- individual works may very much so benefit. The last sentence needs some amending- Free content is not just used Freely, but ''more''. An important distinction to my mind.<br />
<br />
:#''the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression''<br />
:#''the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies ''<br />
<br />
This freedom isn't very clear. Does this involve not charging, or are "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fees acceptable?<br />
<br />
::My take on this question: those fees are not acceptable as normally understood. But it does not involve not charging either. For instance, in Free Software, you can charge whatever you can manage when someone obtains a copy from you. That you cannot do is make them pay you a fee when they then make copies of that copy for themselves.<br />
<br />
:''"Any original work of authorship is copyrighted. Under copyright law, authors are considered God-like "creators" and are given legal powers they can use against those who duplicate "their" content in altered or unaltered form."''<br />
<br />
Personally, I'd like a bit of a mention of the artificiality of copyright. That first line certainly makes it sound like copyright is a God-given natural right. <br />
<br />
More generally, the attribution section strikes me as troublesome. What happens if I take an article, on Fujiwara no Teika, say, which is a stub, and work like the dickens on it, until it is orders of magnitude larger, such that there is not so much as a single word in common with the original article? Should the first person still be credited as the original author? --maru ([[User:129.21.121.235|129.21.121.235]] 06:47, 6 May 2006 (CEST))<br />
<br />
== Adelphi ==<br />
<br />
Please also consult the [http://www.adelphicharter.org/ Adelphi charter].<br />
<br />
And regarding Public domain there is also the concept of "gemeinfrei"/common free in droit' auteur regulation. <br />
i.e. public property vs. free to use<br />
<br />
==The freedom to use and perform the work==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see the word "display" added to this since perform covers music and plays while display would cover films and pictures.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:46, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Since we speak of ''any use, private or public'', and all related rights, this is covered, but I agree that we can & should explicitly enumerate it in the next version.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Discussion list ==<br />
<br />
Is it possible to host the discussion list elsewhere than Google Groups? Not everyone wants to centralize their activity in a Google account. Not to mention that plain-jane Mailman archives are so much more usable than Google's system. Thanks. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:44, 16 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:I can host a mailman list for this on Wikia if there's no objection to that. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 14:18, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks for the offer - but I'd prefer to host the list with Mako. He's already offered to set up a list for us. As a private company in the wiki space which, I hope, will one day adopt the definition, I don't want Wikia to be seen as in any way influencing its content (same reason I wouldn't host the list with Wikimedia).--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks, anything resembling a normal mailing-list with public archives will be ok. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:31, 18 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Metaphor suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to thank the developers of this definition for clearly distinguishing between works that are truly free, and those that are only semi-free. One thing the concept lacks, though, is a simple metaphor as in "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech", that can be used to illustrate the basic distinction of this paradigm in a non-technical way. Not sure if such a thing belongs in an official definition, but I think it's something we should have around. I think I might have come up with something helpful, which is explained in the passage below:<br />
<br />
''Many licenses are called "free", but they are free in different ways. One has to ask, is a work "free to pamphlet" or "free to marionette"? A "free to pamphlet" work may be free to hand out copies (while rewriting or sale is restricted), but a "free to marionette" work is free to adapt into a marionette show, and to sell tickets at the door to rent the theatre and feed the hungry puppetteers.''--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 00:03, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: I think that is a nice metaphor for an essay. I would encourage you to draft an essay here -- I hope that, like the GNU site, freedomdefined.org will eventually be a solid collection of philosophical material.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:13, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I've written something at [[Free to marionette]]. Not sure where it goes in the structure, though.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 09:29, 24 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I've collected that and some other material I found here at [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]. There didn't seem to be any established place for such material till now, so I just went ahead and created one.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 08:01, 10 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Source data ==<br />
<br />
I think the source data section will still need some work to deal with cases where such data is simply not obtainable; IMHO that should not make the work non-free.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:11, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think this is a very tricky part. The source vs. binary duality is very different in the case of a creative work. If I took a photo of a flower would the source data be the flower itself, the raw format of the photo, or would the jpg be enough? If I released a png after adjusting the white balance, would I still have to release the raw format for a work to be free and be excused only if I happen to 'accidentally' destroy the raw data? I think that as long as a work is editable the source data is irrelevant. In the case of software, not releasing source places a technical impediment to modifying the work. In the case of a 3D scene this might also be the case, but in the case of an image it is clearly not. In the case of an audio file, or a film, would the author have to release the off cuts? I would not think so. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 16:07, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think is this fine to distinguish between works where there are no "source data" and where there is. A not yet fleshed-out thought is that anything that can be modified non-destructively should be available for distribution in the preferred form for modification. [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:28, 27 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Copyleft suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to see a [[discussion of copyleft]] and what it needs to have to promote / protect a pool of Free Works.<br />
<br />
==Moral rights==<br />
<br />
There are some moral rights (''droit d'auteur'' not ''copyright'') that I have as an author and due to legal restriction I can't waive them. Does this make my work unfree? This page or [[Permissible restrictions]] does not address this issue.<br />
<br />
PS. You may call me old fashioned, but I don't think sentences like these give a mature and intelligent impression: "They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how 'their content' can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies." [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Samulili Samulili from Wikimedia projects]<br />
:I agree, the hostility is unnecessary and immature. [[User:130.58.68.159|130.58.68.159]] 22:47, 1 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:In my opinion, moral rights do not make your own work un-free, because they don't forbid other people to e.g. make modifications, they allow you to oppose some modifications on a case by case basis. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:21, 6 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Commercial Restrictions==<br />
<br />
What about some restrictions on the commercial distribution of a work? That is, a free culture work can be copied and those copies can be shared but with some restrictions on selling those copies when permission is not granted.<br />
<br />
:That isn't free content. Commercial Restrictions are explicitly not [[permissible restrictions]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 18:20, 3 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== In the summary... ==<br />
<br />
considered "free." --> considered "free".--[[User:Alnokta|Alnokta]] 20:47, 9 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== "god-like creators"? ==<br />
<br />
From the definition: "In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used."<br />
<br />
Is this even true? The purpose of Western copyright law is not meant to prop authors upon some pedestal to be worshiped, but to provide direct incentives for them to publish in the first place. Thus society benefits from the all-rights-reserved work, even if to a lesser extent than if work was freely licensed. I recall at least one US Supreme Court case finding that the primary purpose of copyright/patents is to provide for the benefit of society, and secondly to reward the author if he/she so chooses. Congress has made policy decisions to exempt works of federal employees from copyright, provide for "fair usage", and set (generous) copyright duration limits.<br />
<br />
My incentive to publish most of my work under free licenses is to promote a progressive international society. I expect that the Congress that passed the original version of copyright law shared the same values, as they have created the foundation which makes our work possible. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] (Who is not a lawyer.) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:True, but one has to appreciate the significant difference between original intentions and truth on the ground. I believe that the '''Original''' intentions of the people who first came up with the idea of copyright where not to different from ours, when taken in the context of the period. Yet, I think that legislative development is an evolutionary process, and evolutionary process exist in a state of equilibrium which can become unstable, at which point a fork (not dissimilar to a source code fork) tends to occur. <br />
:I think that in the case of Creative Works this fork has occurred (with the emergence of the internet as the critical factor driving the imbalance) with the "Freedom Culture" and the "IP protectionist Culture" as its two branches, both relying on the same resource, namely "Copyright laws" to archive their goals. Therefore, it is very important to make it absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture", by stating the state of affairs as they are today, not based n original intentions. On the other hand a '''Definition''' ought not to rely on emotionally charged statements to provide its information. I think that statement needs to be changed not because of what it tries to convey, but because of how it does it ... because at the end of the day the medium ''is'' the message. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:27, 13 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::By "truth on the ground," do you mean to say that aggressive copyright compliance has historically increased? The idea is plausible, but I am interested in seeing direct evidence of such a claim.<br />
<br />
::I agree that making "absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture"" is terribly important. I also posit that we should respect both and acknowledge that "free" is not always appropriate. The author needs to make that choice, a choice partially informed by freedomdefined.org. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 16:04, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::By the "truth on the ground" I mean the actual legislation and regulations that are in effect today that are supposed to implement that original intention, as well as case law, actual enforcement, the current context particularly asyncronisity with the digital media, adequacy in view of globalisation etc ... and current public perception of those intentions <br />
<br />
:::So, in short, I think we are agreeing. Where I do tend to differ slightly is on the appropriatness of freedom. I think that while in the current situation ""free" is not always appropriate", this in not necessary to the human condition, but rather and incidental effect of history. On the other hand a definition like this needs to address the here and now, and not some potential state-of-affairs where humanity enjoys universal intellectual freedom. But, again, we mostly agree see [[Talk:FAQ#What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos?|here]] for e.g. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 18:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::::Yes. I should add that I am one to enjoy history :-) I'll catch you around, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Why the sneering tone towards authorship anyway? Free Content isn't about limiting author's rights, it's about convincing people that it's better for authors to share, not that they're misguided in wanting some control at all. It's really all about the author's control over the work, because without it an author couldn't say "you must follow the GPL" any more than he could say 'no copying.' [[User:130.58.194.111|130.58.194.111]] 05:08, 22 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Photos should not be modified ==<br />
<br />
There are legal restrictions on the use and modification of photos, especially if they show living people. Personality rights in many countries do not allow to use photos in a way that could be regarded as libel. Photos of buildings or industrial products do not include the right to reproduce them. So the definition of free photos should be less permissive than the current definition and should not include the right of unlimited changes. --[[User:84.137.109.177|84.137.109.177]] 21:28, 19 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Does this need to be in the definition? Surely, all free cultural works are subject to other laws. Free software programs that capture photos in such a way that is governed by personality rights would be affected by those laws, but that doesn't make the software non-free or require the free software defintion, or a license for that matter, to include a clause about personality rights. If the definition, or a license, were to include clauses about every other possible law, there would be no point. What about child pornography, for example?<br />
: Good point, but I don't think it ought to be in the definition. --[[User:Balleyne|Balleyne]] 00:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trademarks? ==<br />
<br />
There is no mention of trademark restrictions in this article. Does the section '''No other restrictions or limitations''' also include trademark restrictions? To give an example, the [[w:Empire State Building]] is protected by trademark restrictions, so it is not "free of limitations". Is a photo of it -- a photo that was released by the photographer under a free license -- to be considered "free" according to the definition? / [[commons:User:Fred J]] 17:55, 29 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:This is an excellent question. The best example I can think of is Linux, which is obviously freely-licensed and yet there was a huge controversy and court case surrounding the trademark issue. See [[w:Linux|Copyright, licensing and the Linux trademark]] and [http://news.com.com/Torvalds+weighs+in+on+Linux+trademark+row/2100-7344_3-5841222.html]. Usually it's not a problem, but the trademark issue can make things complicated. Wikipedia, which is GFDl of course, uses trademarks all the time, and has a disclaimer about it: [[w:Wikipedia:General_disclaimer]]. [[w:User:Nadav1]] 16:06, 31 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::See also [[:m:User talk:Eloquence#Licensing policy: request for clarification]], where I had asked Erik Möller for a clarification regarding that point. The issue goes beyond trademarks. Photographs of people, for instance, cannot be used in advertising without the subject's express consent in many countries, AFAIK (personality rights). What about design protection? And so on... [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 11:15, 1 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Wiki content license ==<br />
<br />
This is terrible, you selected some license, which is still in heavy 'development' to license the content and didn't even say '2.5 or later'. Please! Use instead something like the gnu project does with "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." at the end of each page. Who can actually decide such a change in this wiki?!? --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: What substantial problem do you see with CC-BY 2.5? I agree that we should add the "any later version" clause, though technically that's problematic at this point.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 11:09, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Selecting ONE license of many for this definition of content freedom marks this one license special. Why CCby2.5? Why not FAL (LAL) 1.2? Why not GFDL? Why not GPL? If there should be a license for the definition's content at all, it should be every single of the accepted 'free content' licenses (are the ones on the licenses page valid free content licenses?) or something extremely simple and permissive as what the GNU project uses for it's web text content. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 20:33, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::PS: A terrible solution would be something like "every change made starting with 04. Dec 2007 is licensed under all of the following licenses and any of their later versions"<br />
<br />
Doesn't CC-BY 2.5 itself say that it can be relicensed under any later version (and any national version)?<br />
<br />
Allowing reuse of content under any free cultural work license would be certainly wiser, though. It's a bit strange that free cultural works are not permitted to include the definition of free cultural works (unless they use cc-by license, and only that). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 22:53, 23 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Why can't they? The cc-by license isn't a "share alike" license. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: The cc-by still has a freaking load of text in it and this is a problem. The free software definition is licensed under "Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." that's ''it''. overkill is the right word. read [http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/texinfo/Verbatim-Copying-License.html#Verbatim-Copying-License this]. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Existing exemptions ==<br />
<br />
''Free Culture Licenses do not take rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.''<br />
<br />
What exactly does this section intend to state? In the strict sense, a license can never limit an exemption (thats why it is called an exemption). If it's meant in a more general sense, saying that FC licenses are not intended to limit your rights, thats not quite true: they do limit your right to relicense derivative works.<br />
<br />
For example, some countries have a concept called panorama freedom: photos made of copyrighted buildings and statues do not need permission from the copyright owner. Thus if somebody takes a picture of a statue, he can treat it as if it were fully his own work: sell it for money, grant limited distribution rights etc. If the statue was under a free "viral" license, that license would explicitly forbid this (the photo being a derivative work). Thus free licenses ''can'' take away rights (not freedoms though; actually they take away your right to reduce the freedom of others to use your work). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 01:35, 24 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
==An Objective Definition of Free?==<br />
<br />
I've written two books about copyright, (http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/index.htm) "Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP Law" and (http://www.greglondon.com/libre/index.htm) Libre Labyrinth". Both are licensed CC-BY. "Bounty Hunters" is more geared towards understanding how to find copyright laws that are fair for All Rights Reserved applications and how Free/Libre/Open projects fit into that context. "Libre Labyrinth" focuses on objectively describing and comparing different Free/Libre/Open licenses.<br />
<br />
The GNU-GPL is graphed out on pages 40 and 41 of "Libre Labyrinth". The main point is that all the "rooms" (all the areas that could be monopolized through some IP law) are open to one another. All the "doors" have been taken off the hinges (it's a bit of an odd metaphor for explaing Venn Diagrams that include allowed state transistions, but it's explained in the beginning of the book, and it seems to work), so there is no one-way trap-doors that allow someone to monopolize the work.<br />
<br />
It would seem that this would qualify as an objectively measurable definition of "Free". I thought you might find this useful, but didn't want to put my own works into your wiki. Conflict of interest, and all that. If this is useful, someone can put it in your main page. If it's not, then feel free to leave it out.<br />
<br />
[[User:GregLondon|GregLondon]] 00:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: Upload not functional ==<br />
<br />
Make the uploaded files directory writable please, I cannot upload files. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:44, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Save It ==<br />
<br />
Can we save it to a music CD<br />
<br />
==Box at top==<br />
Should be (+ "a" or + "the" as the 3rd word):<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is a stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}} [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] 23:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:"the" added, thank you! [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 13:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: favicon ==<br />
<br />
Please add the logo as a favicon, it's hard to find this site between lots of tabs... --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 17:01, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Mako]] has added this. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 20:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Preamble for 1.1 ==<br />
<br />
I think in the 1.1 version we should try to rewrite the preamble in response to some of the feedback we've received. In particular:<br />
<br />
: In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies. <br />
<br />
This seems unnecessarily polemical and polarizing. We want to invite even those people to participate who utilize traditional copyright protections for some of their works. My preference would be to replace this entire paragraph with a more positive one about the power of sharing and collaboration. I don't think we need to take a pro-copyright stance in this definition, but I also don't think we need or want to take an anti-copyright one. Thoughts?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 22:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes Eric, [http://groups.google.co.nz/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/1fbba7c35655360e this is currently being discussed on the Wikieducator list] at the moment, but you are right to try and bring it here. My feeling is that the paragraph is so poor that it should be deleted immediately. Then you/we could build something up if it leaves a void. Personally I think the document is better without it all together, and is not diminished if nothing is there for a time. [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 15:07 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
:: I am an advocate of the free cultural works definition and have recently been directed to issues in the preamble of the definition in the WikiEducator discussion forums. The WikiEducator community have adopted the free cultural works definition and I think that the paragraph referred to below does not serve the interests of the definition. I propose that the following paragraph be deleted from the definition: "''In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.''" Having been on the receiving end of the FUD for many years, I appreciate and understand the sentiments expressed in the paragraph. Perhaps we should create an addendum containing further reading and key resources to articulate these concerns, but I don't think they should be included in the main body of the definition. <br />
--[[User:Mackiwg|Mackiwg]] 23:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus and take action on that paragraph...? [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 17:57 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
I've made an [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=prev&oldid=5059 edit] to [[Definition/Unstable]] per the above; feel free to revise further. If I don't hear anything back within the next week, I'm just going to do a quick 1.1 update myself.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Yes, neutral is better. I think this is the only part that can be considered biased, the rest looks fine. ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 15:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Updated.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:02, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Have further tweaked the Unstable version where I thought there were still unnecessary words, or confusing sentences. Hope to see them in the Definition at some stage. --[[User:Leighblackall|Leighblackall]] 21:35, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Photos and their use ==<br />
<br />
As a photographer I am concerned with how my work is used. Now having said that I do fully understand the concept of creative commons and free cultural work and other "licenses" however the biggest issue I see is that "one size does not fit all". For example Creative Commons uses music/audio terms such as "remix" and in 30 years do taking photographs I have never once been asked if someone could "remix" my image. GFDL is meant for text - so using it for an image and saying "No Back cover text" does not fully apply.<br />
<br />
That being said the FCW license might work great for images with a few re-wording or clarifications. And these are suggestions, rough ones at that.<br />
<br />
''The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.''<br />
<br />
For images the word "perform" might be changed to "display". However for an image I feel "exceptions" should be considered. For example - a photographer takes an image in New Orleans lower ninth ward of an Afro-American who was killed during katrina and they release it "freely". Based upon the FCW "there must be no exception" so a user could re-purpose that image for use in a pro-Nazi poster. A CCL does have "fine print" that state the licensee can ''not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation'' which I think, in relations to images, is a good thing. Perhaps the FCW could change the wording of "There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations" to something along the lines of "There can be exceptions regarding, for example, exploitation or racist use" <br />
<br />
''The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".''<br />
<br />
I do not see any issues with this part as it would relate to images.<br />
<br />
''The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied''<br />
<br />
The concept is fine but it's execution in relation to an image might not fully work. Redistribution is fine. Adding to a collection is fine. Anyone can copy it is fine. Sales however is where you run into issues. Look at the "exception" issue(s) for an idea. If there were to be no restrictions on use there would be no doubt an image could be used in a manner it was never intended to be used and be used in that manner to make money. Again - perhaps in regards to images there could be a choice of the photographer to disallow use for hate "profit" (ie - use the image in pro-hate merchandise or literature). Likewise a religious group could take an image of someone dying and place it on a t-shirt saying "Aids Kills" and sell it. I fully believe that a photographer should be allowed some choice in how their image is used. <br />
<br />
''The freedom to distribute derivative works''<br />
<br />
Sort of a given with any of these "free" licenses. But perhaps in conjunction with any sort of image options as defined above this would slightly change what the "derivative work" could be used for. <br />
<br />
Probably most of this could be added in the [[Permissible restrictions]] section too. It would be good to hear other photographers input on this and have a discussion on ways to make this work. [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] 21:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Zh&diff=5166
Definition/Zh
2008-10-18T07:12:13Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 219.147.217.187 (Talk); changed back to last version by Shizhao</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
== 摘要 ==<br />
<br />
这份文件所定义的“自由文化作品”(Free Cultural Works)是指可以被任何人自由地研究、使用、复制和/或修改,并且用于任何目的的作品或表现形式。它还阐述了某些可以被接受的限制,以尊重或保护这些基本的自由。该定义还区分了与“自由作品”(free works)之间的差别,以及[[Licenses|自由许可协议]]在一个处于法律保护状态的自由作品上的使用。这个定义本身并不是一个许可协议;它是一个工具,用以确定一个作品或协议是否可以被视为是“自由”的。<br />
<br />
== 前言 ==<br />
社会与技术的进步,使得越来越多的人可以“获取、创建、修改、出版和分发”各类作品:艺术作品、科教资料、软件、文章,总之就是“任何可以通过数字形式呈现的作品”。Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
大多数的作者,无论活跃于哪个领域,无论是业余还是专业,都对这样一种生态系统很感兴趣:在其中作品可以被传播、重制和创造性的衍生。这有利于作品的重制和衍生,从而丰富我们的文化。<br />
<br />
为了保证这个生态系统的优秀机能,原创作品应该是'''自由'''的。我们所说的“自由”是指:<br />
*'''自由的使用'''作品并从使用中获益<br />
*'''自由的学习'''作品并从中获得知识<br />
*'''自由的制作和分发'''全部或部分的资料或表达方式<br />
*'''自由的修改和改进'''并分发衍生作品<br />
<br />
这种自由应该对任何人,在任何地点、任何时间都有效。作品在这方面的使用不应该受到限制。创意是利用现有资源的行为方式,以前在某种程度上还未设想过。<br />
<br />
但是在很多国家这种自由都被一种称为“著作权法”的法律所打压。他们视作者为神圣的创作者,并且给与他们对“内容”如何被重制的独家垄断权。这种垄断阻碍了文化的繁荣,他并未对作者的经济状况有所帮助,反而恰恰保障了强大的出版社的商业模式。<br />
<br />
法律虽然这样,但是作者可以为他们的作品自由选择一种称之为[[w:license|自由许可]]的法律文件。对作者而言,选择将作品在自由许可下授权并不意味着丧失一切权利,但是它提供了上面列出的任何一种自由。<br />
<br />
这是非常重要的。任何作品声明自由提供(上述的自由)不会有任何风险。这也是我们为今后的原创作品和许可提供一个确切的'''自由定义'''的原因。<br />
<br />
== 自由文化作品的识别 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 自由文化协议的定义 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
=== 自由的本质 ===<br />
<br />
<br />
=== 授权限制 ===<br />
<br />
== 自由文化作品的定义 ==<br />
<br />
== 进阶阅读 ==<br />
<br />
== 译文 ==<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Help:Contents&diff=5165
Help:Contents
2008-10-18T07:11:43Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 76.113.178.201 (Talk); changed back to last version by Angela Beesley</p>
<hr />
<div>For editing help, please see the [[MetaWikipedia:Help:Contents|MediaWiki handbook]].</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Awareness&diff=5155
Awareness
2008-10-13T00:08:41Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 207.200.116.139 (Talk); changed back to last version by Angela Beesley</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Free Content Definition at Wikimania.jpg|thumb|The Eye of Sauron sees all: DFCW title slide at Wikimania 2006]]<br />
<br />
==August 2006==<br />
;Wikimania <br />
:The DFCW was presented at [http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org Wikimania 2006] by initiators [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] and [[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]].<br />
<br />
;Commonwealth of Learning <br />
:[http://www.col.org/colweb/site/pid/4042 Sir John Daniel], President and Chief Executive Officer of the Commonwealth of Learning, recommends using DFCW licenses for Open Educational Resources<br />
<br />
;Churchill Club of Australia <br />
:[http://www.churchillclub.org.au/23.asp?eventId=99 Future Directions for Free Content] by [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]]<br />
<br />
==March 2007==<br />
<br />
;Free Software Foundation<br />
:[http://www.fsf.org/associate/meetings/2007 Defining Free Culture] presented at Associate Member Meeting by [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]]<br />
<br />
;Wikimedia Foundation<br />
:Adopted as a definition of Free Content by the Wikimedia Foundation for its [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy licensing policy]<br />
<br />
== February 2008 ==<br />
<br />
; Creative Commons<br />
: The following licenses are identified as being compliant with the DFCW:<br />
: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA]<br />
: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC-BY]</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Index&diff=5134
Portal talk:Index
2008-10-06T19:46:08Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 88.225.214.194 (Talk); changed back to last version by Erik Möller</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sites which host free as well as non-free works ==<br />
<br />
There are sites or portals which host free as well as non-free works (e.g. non-commercial works). It is the "Creative Commons disease", because the basic principle of these sites is often "you can publish your works here under any of the CC licenses or any other similar license".<br />
Shall we:<br />
* list these sites on a specific page?<br />
* list these sites on the same page as sites hosting only free works, but with a very big warning?<br />
* list only the sites which offer a functionality to specifically display free works (and link directly to this functionality)?<br />
* not list them at all?<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:51, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I think they should be listed on the main portal, but in a separate section/box/whatever.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 18:50, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: If a site provides free content, then it should be listed, however, I think that a warning box that indicates that the site provides mixed content is appropriate. Also, the site should of course clearly indicate which content is free and which isn't.--[[User:Marcus|Marcus]] 11:17, 7 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free Cultural Search Portal ==<br />
<br />
Hi, all. I use google co-op make a Custom Search Engine - [http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012948615710733534834%3Ao5q3jecs9sm Free Cultural Search Portal], welcome other contributing! --[[User:Shizhao|Shizhao]] 15:04, 16 March 2007 (CET)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=5067
Licenses
2008-09-22T05:55:42Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 78.187.39.197 (Talk); changed back to last version by Spiritia</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparison of Licenses ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1" style="width: 100%; text-align: center; border-collapse: collapse;"<br />
! License<br />
! [[#Intended scope|Intended scope]]<br />
! [[#Copyleft|Copyleft]]<br />
! [[#Practical modifiability|Practical modifiability]]<br />
! [[#Attribution|Attribution]]<br />
! [[#Related rights|Related rights]]<br />
! [[#Access control prohibition|Access control prohibition]]<br />
! [[#Worldwide applicability|Worldwide applicability]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Against DRM|Against DRM]]<br />
| Works of art<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| Exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution|Creative Commons Attribution]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations <br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike|Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Design Science License|Design Science License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally science data<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]<br />
| Works of art<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Exact translations (French law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU Lesser General Public License|GNU Lesser General Public License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally Software<br />
| {{partial|Weak}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU General Public License|GNU General Public License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally Software<br />
| {{yes|Strong}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Version 3 prohibits "Tivoisation" in certain cases}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Lizenz für Freie Inhalte|Lizenz für Freie Inhalte]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Unknown (license text is German)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| Software<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Criteria for choosing a license ==<br />
<br />
We explain hereafter some of the criteria which may influence your choice of a free content license. Those criteria are not inherently good or bad. The importance of each criteria depends on the context (for example the kind of work, or the kind of collaborative process you want to encourage), and on personal preferences.<br />
<br />
This list is not meant to be exhaustive. Other aspects may be important, like the clarity of the wording of a license, or the philosophy which is defended by its authors, or whether the license is surrounded by an active community of authors.<br />
<br />
Endly, we want to stress that, '''before choosing a license, you must read the license text carefully.''' No summary, no matter how attractive or reassuring, can replace detailed understanding of the license itself.<br />
<br />
=== Intended scope ===<br />
<br />
Some licenses strive to be as generic as is humanly (or rather, legally) possible. Others deliberately focus on a specific domain of creation, like software, or documentation. When a license has such a focus, it doesn't mean that it cannot be used for other kinds of works, but that its main area of use (and thus its social recognition as a trustable license) is clearly bounded.<br />
<br />
For example, the GNU GPL can be used for many kinds of works, but its main area of recognition is software.<br />
<br />
=== Copyleft ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sa.svg|48px]]<br />
<br />
When a work is "copylefted", it means all derived works (even if they mix in other works as well) must be distributed under the same terms (usually the same exact license) as the original work. Conversely, a non-copylefted work can be distributed under different terms, and even be rendered non-free.<br />
<br />
Therefore, using a copyleft license pretty much guarantees that users of subsequent works (for example modified copies) will be granted the same essential freedoms. On the other hand, a copyleft license can also limit opportunities for re-use, because most copyleft licenses are not compatible between each other. This is why people sometimes prefer non-copyleft license, depending on the work and the kind of practices they want to encourage.<br />
<br />
''ShareAlike'' is a synonym of ''copyleft'' in the Creative Commons vocabulary.<br />
<br />
Strong copyleft also forbids linking or integration the subject work into larger works/projects that are not also licensed with a license with compatible copyleft terms. Weak copyleft lacks such a 'viral copyleft' requirement.<br />
<br />
=== Practical modifiability ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sc.svg|48px]]<br />
<br />
Although all free licenses give you the ''legal'' right to modify, not all of them try to specify how modifiability of the work is ''practically'' enforced. [[Source Code|Requiring modifiability]] is important, especially for works which can be distributed under a completely opaque format such as software binary code (''"object code"'').<br />
<br />
The licenses which require practical modifiability usually define a notion of ''source code'', ''source data'' or similar. The GNU FDL defines ''transparent copies'' and disallows use of technological protection measures (TPM). The Creative Commons licenses disallow use of TPMs.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_by.svg|48px]]<br />
<br />
Requiring attribution means that authorship for the work must be recognized in any circumstances. In the context of derived works (modified copies), this includes the initial as well as subsequent authors and contributors.<br />
<br />
It is often stated that all licenses can implicitly require attribution, as they mandate that the copyright notice must be kept intact when distributing copies. By including up-to-date authorship information in the copyright notice, one can indeed forbid subsequent works to erase that information. However, future contributions to the work are not guaranteed to be also credited using such a mechanism; indeed, it is based on the good will of authors (or maintainers) of subsequent works. Having an Attribution requirement prevents this from happening and mandates that all subsequent works have the same policy in mentioning authorship.<br />
<br />
Attribution is a double-edged sword, as it may become a heavy burden to list all contributors for projects which imply seamless and massive collaboration (like Wikipedia). For many works it is, however, a reasonable requirement.<br />
<br />
=== Related rights ===<br />
<br />
''Related rights'' concern not the mere copying and modification of the work, but its use in a derived manner: for example, performing the work, displaying it in public or private, broadcasting, webcasting, etc. Related rights exist for various areas of creation (songs, theater...); they often belong to people other than the authors of the work, such as perfomers, producers of phonograms, etc.<br />
<br />
Some free content licenses take care to also grant related rights to the recipient of the work. There may even be a [[#Copyleft|copyleft]] provision which states that related works (interpretations, performances, recordings) must be released under the same license as the work.<br />
<br />
=== Access control prohibition ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_drm.svg|48px]]<br />
<br />
Some licenses contain a clause, which forbids to control access to the licensed content.<br />
In some licenses this clause concerns only the licensee (licensor can use access control systems to forbid not granted rights).<br />
<br />
=== Worldwide applicability ===<br />
<br />
When distributing a free work over the world, it is important to understand how people from other countries will be able to reuse this work.<br />
<br />
License writers have adopted three different strategies regarding the internationalization of their licenses:<br />
* ''same license for everyone'': only the original license text (often in English) is given legal value, and translations may be provided purely for information purposes;<br />
* ''exact translations'': translations of the original license text are provided, which all have legal value; those translations have exactly the same clauses and wording as the original text;<br />
* ''local adaptations'': the license is rewritten according to each national legal system.<br />
<br />
'''Attention: some licenses use a specific national law: so you cannot interpret the license through your national law, but through the law specified in the license.'''<br />
For example, Free Art License uses French law (you must pay attention to French law also if the license is written in English, German or other languages).<br />
<br />
The two first schemes ensure that everyone is given the same rights. In the third scheme (local adaptations), similarity and equivalence of the different versions should be carefully examined.<br />
<br />
According to advocates of the adaptation scheme, licenses must be rewritten in order to cope with the peculiarities of the various legal systems. This position is held by the Creative Commons organization.<br />
<br />
According to opponents of the adaptation scheme, having different national versions of a license presents the risk to break trust and interoperability. Also, they stress that the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works] provides a framework which, with careful drafting, allows to write internationally applicable license texts. This position is held by the Free Software Foundation and by the Free Art License authors.<br />
<br />
== List of licenses ==<br />
<br />
=== Against DRM ===<br />
<br />
* current version: 2.0<br />
* author: [http://www.freecreations.org Free Creations]<br />
* reference URL (English): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2.html <br />
* reference URL (Italian): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_it.html<br />
* reference URL (Spanish - Castilian): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_es1.html<br />
* reference URL (Spanish - Catalan): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_es2.html<br />
* reference URL (French): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_fr.html<br />
<br />
=== BSD-like non-copyleft licenses ===<br />
<br />
In parallel with the set of GNU licenses (including the [[#GNU GPL|GNU GPL]]), the [[Existing Movements#Free Software|free software]] world evolved a number of very simple non-copyleft licenses. These licenses are so simple that no dedicated text is needed to expose the terms of the license. To reuse such a license, you must take its text and replace the copyright notice with your own. Since these licenses are non-copyleft, changing the license text in such a way does not prevent reuse between works from happening.<br />
<br />
Regardless of their wording, these licenses always grant the user very broad rights, including the right to modify and distribute without supplying any source code. Also, their concise wording makes them simple to understand and unambiguous as to their effects.<br />
<br />
These licenses are often called "BSD-like" because the first occurence of such a license has been the license under which the Berkeley Software Distribution (one of the first free versions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix Unix]) was shipped to users.<br />
<br />
One should distinguish the original BSD license with its controversial ''[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html advertising clause]'' from the revised BSD license that does not have the advertising clause. <br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons Attribution ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: CC-BY<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: CC-BY-SA<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
<!-- <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"><br />
<Work rdf:about="urn:sha1:XCKBXFCIAIKUOW2D5JXEH3C5GFHUVHHL"><dc:date>2008</dc:date><dc:title>yung buttah</dc:title><dc:description></dc:description><dc:rights><Agent><dc:title>intro</dc:title></Agent></dc:rights><dc:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Sound" /><license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/" /></Work><br />
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/"><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/DerivativeWorks" /><prohibits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/CommercialUse" /><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/ShareAlike" /><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice" /></License><br />
</rdf:RDF> --><br />
<br />
=== Design Science License ===<br />
<br />
* ''Not maintained anymore''<ref></ref><br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== FreeBSD Documentation License ===<br />
<br />
* author: [http://www.freebsd.org/ FreeBSD Project]<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html]<br />
<br />
Although especially written for the FreeBSD project, this license shows you how to draft a very simple non-copyleft license for documentation works.<br />
<br />
=== Free Art License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: License Arte Libre, FAL, LAL<br />
* Current version: 1.3<br />
* author: [http://artlibre.org/ Copyleft Attitude]<br />
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ License text (English, version 1.2)]<br />
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/ License text (French)]<br />
<br />
=== GNU Free Documentation License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: GNU FDL, GFDL, FDL<br />
* Current version: 1.2<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
==== Invariant sections ====<br />
<br />
''Invariant sections'' are a special provision of the GFDL which, if used, prevent anyone from modifying the parts of the work which are defined as "invariant". The Free Software Foundation finds it useful to protect some special "non-functional" parts of the work, like a statement of intent (the motivation for invariant sections was, allegedly, to prevent the GNU Manifesto to be removed or modified in GNU documentations).<br />
<br />
We believe, however, that freedom should apply to all kind of works, and that what is "functional" in one situation can be "artistic" in another - and vice-versa. Consequently, a work using invariant sections to forbid some kinds of modifications to the work cannot be considered completely free.<br />
<br />
Unless additional permissions are granted, all FDL works contain unmodifiable sections which aren't called ''Invariant Sections'', such as a copy of the license embedded in the document itself.<br />
<br />
=== GNU General Public License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: GNU GPL, GPL<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
* Author: [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
The GNU GPL is, according to various statistics, probably the most used free software license. It was also the first license to implement the concept of [[#Copyleft|copyleft]], guaranteeing that "GPL'ed" free software cannot become, or take part in, non-free software.<br />
<br />
Although the GPL is primarily intended for software programs, it is worded so as to apply to many different kinds of works. The main condition for the GPL to be applicable to a type of work is that it admits the notion of a ''preferred form of a work for making modifications to it'' (be it source code in a computer language, music score notation, digital graphics under a format retaining structure, etc.). For example, there are many occurences of text or graphics released under the GPL.<br />
<br />
=== Lizenz für Freie Inhalte ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: LFFI<br />
* [http://www.neppstar.net/webstar/freieinhalte-webstar.html License Text (German)]<br />
<br />
AFAIK only used by the german portal neppstar for free music and video. Anyway, it seems to be a valid free license.<br />
<br />
=== MIT License ===<br />
<br />
* author: MIT<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/mit-license.php http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/mit-license.php]<br />
<br />
This license is arguably the simplest form of the BSD-like licenses for software. All the license, except for the no-warranty statement, is condensed in two short paragraphs.<br />
<br />
There are variants, like the [http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php current BSD license] which has an additional provision forbidding endorsement of derived works using the name of the original authors.<br />
<br />
=== Commentary on non-free licenses ===<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/NC|Essay about the Creative Commons non-commercial restriction]]</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=5037
Talk:Definition
2008-09-15T00:09:05Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 125.40.85.171 (Talk); changed back to last version by Rei-artur</p>
<hr />
<div>== What about the applicable law? ==<br />
<br />
If a license has a clause about the applicable law, is the license free?<br />
In my opinion, this clause is a problem because only the people that know a certain law can understand license's implied sides.<br />
<br />
: I think CC are working on licenses covered by Berne/WIPO law only. But a license needs a jurisdiction to avoid confusion or argument over terms and meaning, so in this case having a jurisdiction may protect freedom. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 20:06, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== First Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
I had some issues with the definition of free content here. Firstly, the document attempts to define "free content" as so many have done in the past, yet there is no clear definition of what is and isn't free content in the "free content movement" you discuss. It concerns me that a definition is being created in isolation from the wider community without proper discussion.<br />
<br />
I see the definition here models itself on the free software definition, but misses several important and fundamental aspects:<br />
<br />
How does the definition handle digital works (such as images, documents, etc) versus non-digitual works (such as hard-copy books, paintings, sculptures, etc)?<br />
<br />
How should digital works be treated? A digital work, such as a wordprocessor document, can be viewed in two ways: firstly, as a work in and of itself, i.e. content, but also as a piece of software itself that can display a final work. Should you only have the freedom to study a work (content), or should you also have the freedom to study how a work was created (software)?<br />
<br />
The definition talks about the freedom to make and release (distribute?) modifications but it doesn't say anything about source copies of work. I can think of several examples where the freedom to make modifications can be provided, but without a source copy of a work (i.e. in the format preferred for making modifications) making modifications could be prohibitive:<br />
<br />
* Protected PDF - sure, decrypting such a PDF is possible but its a) tricky to export a PDF to a format that can be modified with all the information intact (images, tables, etc), and b) it may be illegal to decrypt protected PDFs in certain juristictions (DMCA?)<br />
* Text content as image files - a user could allow users the freedom to modify his written works but only distribute them in image format. It is difficult for downstream users to then extract the text content<br />
<br />
You also talk about "free content licenses" where you should really be talking about free content works: a license enables a free content work, but<br />
<br />
Free experession is not the same as free content: you can have the right to free expresssion without having free content, and free content does not guarantee free expression.<br />
<br />
I hope this is helpful. --[[User:Rgladwell|Rgladwell]] 20:25, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for your comments. If you don't mind, I will move them to [[Talk:Definition/Unstable]] and respond there, just to have all comments in one place. First thoughts: You raise a very good point. Is it possible for something to be free content without the "source code" (or something equivalent) being available? Under the current definition, it is. Perhaps we need to find a wording that requires source availabiliy where such sources are essential to modifying the work. More later,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:42, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I've dispatched some of the comments into their own sections in Definition/Unstable. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:16, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Is there somewhere I can sign? -rhY-<br />
<br />
::In terms of source requirements, should it be more along the lines of source must be supplied where it existed in the making of the derivative and in the case of simple copies, if source was available for the original?<br />
<br />
Wow ... you even frame/structure Talk?! ... meh. Anyhow, ''nota'': you have Definition as your default index (wrong ... on basic principle, wrong ... you program? think trampolene) but Definition links to the rest of the site very very poorly. --BenTrem [[User:68.148.26.220|68.148.26.220]] 01:07, 25 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== versioning ==<br />
License 333 and version 0.66 -- it is a sign! Excellent.<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Open Knowledge Definition ==<br />
<br />
Last september/october the [http://www.okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation] 'ported' the Open Source Definiton to produce the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition] ([http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html full text]).<br />
<br />
This came out of various discussions with people working on open geodata, open access, and open databases of scientific data. As I wrote then:<br />
<br />
"The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) provides an answer to the question: what is open knowledge? It puts forward, in a simple and clear manner, principles that define open knowledge and which open knowledge licenses must satisfy.<br />
<br />
The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access' journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential blurring of what is open and what is not.<br />
<br />
In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition, by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in achieving these ends."<br />
<br />
I therefore think this new initiative is a big step forward at a time, when at least to judge from my experience of debates about the CC license at Free Culture UK, there is no clear consensus about terms such as 'Free Content' (and therefore no consensus about the norms of the community).<br />
<br />
Given the common interest in these issues I'd very much like to get further involved in the FCED -- and parhaps also look at a way to merge the OKD and the FCED.<br />
<br />
--RufusPollock<br />
<br />
<br />
== My take ==<br />
<br />
:''"Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other works do not benefit from artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely."''<br />
<br />
I think this needs some revising. Production and quality do not benefit from artificial scarcity- individual works may very much so benefit. The last sentence needs some amending- Free content is not just used Freely, but ''more''. An important distinction to my mind.<br />
<br />
:#''the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression''<br />
:#''the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies ''<br />
<br />
This freedom isn't very clear. Does this involve not charging, or are "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fees acceptable?<br />
<br />
::My take on this question: those fees are not acceptable as normally understood. But it does not involve not charging either. For instance, in Free Software, you can charge whatever you can manage when someone obtains a copy from you. That you cannot do is make them pay you a fee when they then make copies of that copy for themselves.<br />
<br />
:''"Any original work of authorship is copyrighted. Under copyright law, authors are considered God-like "creators" and are given legal powers they can use against those who duplicate "their" content in altered or unaltered form."''<br />
<br />
Personally, I'd like a bit of a mention of the artificiality of copyright. That first line certainly makes it sound like copyright is a God-given natural right. <br />
<br />
More generally, the attribution section strikes me as troublesome. What happens if I take an article, on Fujiwara no Teika, say, which is a stub, and work like the dickens on it, until it is orders of magnitude larger, such that there is not so much as a single word in common with the original article? Should the first person still be credited as the original author? --maru ([[User:129.21.121.235|129.21.121.235]] 06:47, 6 May 2006 (CEST))<br />
<br />
== Adelphi ==<br />
<br />
Please also consult the [http://www.adelphicharter.org/ Adelphi charter].<br />
<br />
And regarding Public domain there is also the concept of "gemeinfrei"/common free in droit' auteur regulation. <br />
i.e. public property vs. free to use<br />
<br />
==The freedom to use and perform the work==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see the word "display" added to this since perform covers music and plays while display would cover films and pictures.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:46, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Since we speak of ''any use, private or public'', and all related rights, this is covered, but I agree that we can & should explicitly enumerate it in the next version.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Discussion list ==<br />
<br />
Is it possible to host the discussion list elsewhere than Google Groups? Not everyone wants to centralize their activity in a Google account. Not to mention that plain-jane Mailman archives are so much more usable than Google's system. Thanks. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:44, 16 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:I can host a mailman list for this on Wikia if there's no objection to that. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 14:18, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks for the offer - but I'd prefer to host the list with Mako. He's already offered to set up a list for us. As a private company in the wiki space which, I hope, will one day adopt the definition, I don't want Wikia to be seen as in any way influencing its content (same reason I wouldn't host the list with Wikimedia).--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks, anything resembling a normal mailing-list with public archives will be ok. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:31, 18 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Metaphor suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to thank the developers of this definition for clearly distinguishing between works that are truly free, and those that are only semi-free. One thing the concept lacks, though, is a simple metaphor as in "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech", that can be used to illustrate the basic distinction of this paradigm in a non-technical way. Not sure if such a thing belongs in an official definition, but I think it's something we should have around. I think I might have come up with something helpful, which is explained in the passage below:<br />
<br />
''Many licenses are called "free", but they are free in different ways. One has to ask, is a work "free to pamphlet" or "free to marionette"? A "free to pamphlet" work may be free to hand out copies (while rewriting or sale is restricted), but a "free to marionette" work is free to adapt into a marionette show, and to sell tickets at the door to rent the theatre and feed the hungry puppetteers.''--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 00:03, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: I think that is a nice metaphor for an essay. I would encourage you to draft an essay here -- I hope that, like the GNU site, freedomdefined.org will eventually be a solid collection of philosophical material.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:13, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I've written something at [[Free to marionette]]. Not sure where it goes in the structure, though.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 09:29, 24 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I've collected that and some other material I found here at [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]. There didn't seem to be any established place for such material till now, so I just went ahead and created one.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 08:01, 10 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Source data ==<br />
<br />
I think the source data section will still need some work to deal with cases where such data is simply not obtainable; IMHO that should not make the work non-free.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:11, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think this is a very tricky part. The source vs. binary duality is very different in the case of a creative work. If I took a photo of a flower would the source data be the flower itself, the raw format of the photo, or would the jpg be enough? If I released a png after adjusting the white balance, would I still have to release the raw format for a work to be free and be excused only if I happen to 'accidentally' destroy the raw data? I think that as long as a work is editable the source data is irrelevant. In the case of software, not releasing source places a technical impediment to modifying the work. In the case of a 3D scene this might also be the case, but in the case of an image it is clearly not. In the case of an audio file, or a film, would the author have to release the off cuts? I would not think so. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 16:07, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think is this fine to distinguish between works where there are no "source data" and where there is. A not yet fleshed-out thought is that anything that can be modified non-destructively should be available for distribution in the preferred form for modification. [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:28, 27 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Copyleft suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to see a [[discussion of copyleft]] and what it needs to have to promote / protect a pool of Free Works.<br />
<br />
==Moral rights==<br />
<br />
There are some moral rights (''droit d'auteur'' not ''copyright'') that I have as an author and due to legal restriction I can't waive them. Does this make my work unfree? This page or [[Permissible restrictions]] does not address this issue.<br />
<br />
PS. You may call me old fashioned, but I don't think sentences like these give a mature and intelligent impression: "They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how 'their content' can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies." [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Samulili Samulili from Wikimedia projects]<br />
:I agree, the hostility is unnecessary and immature. [[User:130.58.68.159|130.58.68.159]] 22:47, 1 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:In my opinion, moral rights do not make your own work un-free, because they don't forbid other people to e.g. make modifications, they allow you to oppose some modifications on a case by case basis. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:21, 6 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Commercial Restrictions==<br />
<br />
What about some restrictions on the commercial distribution of a work? That is, a free culture work can be copied and those copies can be shared but with some restrictions on selling those copies when permission is not granted.<br />
<br />
:That isn't free content. Commercial Restrictions are explicitly not [[permissible restrictions]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 18:20, 3 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== In the summary... ==<br />
<br />
considered "free." --> considered "free".--[[User:Alnokta|Alnokta]] 20:47, 9 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== "god-like creators"? ==<br />
<br />
From the definition: "In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used."<br />
<br />
Is this even true? The purpose of Western copyright law is not meant to prop authors upon some pedestal to be worshiped, but to provide direct incentives for them to publish in the first place. Thus society benefits from the all-rights-reserved work, even if to a lesser extent than if work was freely licensed. I recall at least one US Supreme Court case finding that the primary purpose of copyright/patents is to provide for the benefit of society, and secondly to reward the author if he/she so chooses. Congress has made policy decisions to exempt works of federal employees from copyright, provide for "fair usage", and set (generous) copyright duration limits.<br />
<br />
My incentive to publish most of my work under free licenses is to promote a progressive international society. I expect that the Congress that passed the original version of copyright law shared the same values, as they have created the foundation which makes our work possible. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] (Who is not a lawyer.) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:True, but one has to appreciate the significant difference between original intentions and truth on the ground. I believe that the '''Original''' intentions of the people who first came up with the idea of copyright where not to different from ours, when taken in the context of the period. Yet, I think that legislative development is an evolutionary process, and evolutionary process exist in a state of equilibrium which can become unstable, at which point a fork (not dissimilar to a source code fork) tends to occur. <br />
:I think that in the case of Creative Works this fork has occurred (with the emergence of the internet as the critical factor driving the imbalance) with the "Freedom Culture" and the "IP protectionist Culture" as its two branches, both relying on the same resource, namely "Copyright laws" to archive their goals. Therefore, it is very important to make it absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture", by stating the state of affairs as they are today, not based n original intentions. On the other hand a '''Definition''' ought not to rely on emotionally charged statements to provide its information. I think that statement needs to be changed not because of what it tries to convey, but because of how it does it ... because at the end of the day the medium ''is'' the message. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:27, 13 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::By "truth on the ground," do you mean to say that aggressive copyright compliance has historically increased? The idea is plausible, but I am interested in seeing direct evidence of such a claim.<br />
<br />
::I agree that making "absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture"" is terribly important. I also posit that we should respect both and acknowledge that "free" is not always appropriate. The author needs to make that choice, a choice partially informed by freedomdefined.org. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 16:04, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::By the "truth on the ground" I mean the actual legislation and regulations that are in effect today that are supposed to implement that original intention, as well as case law, actual enforcement, the current context particularly asyncronisity with the digital media, adequacy in view of globalisation etc ... and current public perception of those intentions <br />
<br />
:::So, in short, I think we are agreeing. Where I do tend to differ slightly is on the appropriatness of freedom. I think that while in the current situation ""free" is not always appropriate", this in not necessary to the human condition, but rather and incidental effect of history. On the other hand a definition like this needs to address the here and now, and not some potential state-of-affairs where humanity enjoys universal intellectual freedom. But, again, we mostly agree see [[Talk:FAQ#What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos?|here]] for e.g. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 18:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::::Yes. I should add that I am one to enjoy history :-) I'll catch you around, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Why the sneering tone towards authorship anyway? Free Content isn't about limiting author's rights, it's about convincing people that it's better for authors to share, not that they're misguided in wanting some control at all. It's really all about the author's control over the work, because without it an author couldn't say "you must follow the GPL" any more than he could say 'no copying.' [[User:130.58.194.111|130.58.194.111]] 05:08, 22 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Photos should not be modified ==<br />
<br />
There are legal restrictions on the use and modification of photos, especially if they show living people. Personality rights in many countries do not allow to use photos in a way that could be regarded as libel. Photos of buildings or industrial products do not include the right to reproduce them. So the definition of free photos should be less permissive than the current definition and should not include the right of unlimited changes. --[[User:84.137.109.177|84.137.109.177]] 21:28, 19 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Does this need to be in the definition? Surely, all free cultural works are subject to other laws. Free software programs that capture photos in such a way that is governed by personality rights would be affected by those laws, but that doesn't make the software non-free or require the free software defintion, or a license for that matter, to include a clause about personality rights. If the definition, or a license, were to include clauses about every other possible law, there would be no point. What about child pornography, for example?<br />
: Good point, but I don't think it ought to be in the definition. --[[User:Balleyne|Balleyne]] 00:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trademarks? ==<br />
<br />
There is no mention of trademark restrictions in this article. Does the section '''No other restrictions or limitations''' also include trademark restrictions? To give an example, the [[w:Empire State Building]] is protected by trademark restrictions, so it is not "free of limitations". Is a photo of it -- a photo that was released by the photographer under a free license -- to be considered "free" according to the definition? / [[commons:User:Fred J]] 17:55, 29 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:This is an excellent question. The best example I can think of is Linux, which is obviously freely-licensed and yet there was a huge controversy and court case surrounding the trademark issue. See [[w:Linux|Copyright, licensing and the Linux trademark]] and [http://news.com.com/Torvalds+weighs+in+on+Linux+trademark+row/2100-7344_3-5841222.html]. Usually it's not a problem, but the trademark issue can make things complicated. Wikipedia, which is GFDl of course, uses trademarks all the time, and has a disclaimer about it: [[w:Wikipedia:General_disclaimer]]. [[w:User:Nadav1]] 16:06, 31 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::See also [[:m:User talk:Eloquence#Licensing policy: request for clarification]], where I had asked Erik Möller for a clarification regarding that point. The issue goes beyond trademarks. Photographs of people, for instance, cannot be used in advertising without the subject's express consent in many countries, AFAIK (personality rights). What about design protection? And so on... [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 11:15, 1 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Wiki content license ==<br />
<br />
This is terrible, you selected some license, which is still in heavy 'development' to license the content and didn't even say '2.5 or later'. Please! Use instead something like the gnu project does with "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." at the end of each page. Who can actually decide such a change in this wiki?!? --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: What substantial problem do you see with CC-BY 2.5? I agree that we should add the "any later version" clause, though technically that's problematic at this point.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 11:09, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Selecting ONE license of many for this definition of content freedom marks this one license special. Why CCby2.5? Why not FAL (LAL) 1.2? Why not GFDL? Why not GPL? If there should be a license for the definition's content at all, it should be every single of the accepted 'free content' licenses (are the ones on the licenses page valid free content licenses?) or something extremely simple and permissive as what the GNU project uses for it's web text content. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 20:33, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::PS: A terrible solution would be something like "every change made starting with 04. Dec 2007 is licensed under all of the following licenses and any of their later versions"<br />
<br />
Doesn't CC-BY 2.5 itself say that it can be relicensed under any later version (and any national version)?<br />
<br />
Allowing reuse of content under any free cultural work license would be certainly wiser, though. It's a bit strange that free cultural works are not permitted to include the definition of free cultural works (unless they use cc-by license, and only that). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 22:53, 23 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Why can't they? The cc-by license isn't a "share alike" license. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: The cc-by still has a freaking load of text in it and this is a problem. The free software definition is licensed under "Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." that's ''it''. overkill is the right word. read [http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/texinfo/Verbatim-Copying-License.html#Verbatim-Copying-License this]. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Existing exemptions ==<br />
<br />
''Free Culture Licenses do not take rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.''<br />
<br />
What exactly does this section intend to state? In the strict sense, a license can never limit an exemption (thats why it is called an exemption). If it's meant in a more general sense, saying that FC licenses are not intended to limit your rights, thats not quite true: they do limit your right to relicense derivative works.<br />
<br />
For example, some countries have a concept called panorama freedom: photos made of copyrighted buildings and statues do not need permission from the copyright owner. Thus if somebody takes a picture of a statue, he can treat it as if it were fully his own work: sell it for money, grant limited distribution rights etc. If the statue was under a free "viral" license, that license would explicitly forbid this (the photo being a derivative work). Thus free licenses ''can'' take away rights (not freedoms though; actually they take away your right to reduce the freedom of others to use your work). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 01:35, 24 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
==An Objective Definition of Free?==<br />
<br />
I've written two books about copyright, (http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/index.htm) "Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP Law" and (http://www.greglondon.com/libre/index.htm) Libre Labyrinth". Both are licensed CC-BY. "Bounty Hunters" is more geared towards understanding how to find copyright laws that are fair for All Rights Reserved applications and how Free/Libre/Open projects fit into that context. "Libre Labyrinth" focuses on objectively describing and comparing different Free/Libre/Open licenses.<br />
<br />
The GNU-GPL is graphed out on pages 40 and 41 of "Libre Labyrinth". The main point is that all the "rooms" (all the areas that could be monopolized through some IP law) are open to one another. All the "doors" have been taken off the hinges (it's a bit of an odd metaphor for explaing Venn Diagrams that include allowed state transistions, but it's explained in the beginning of the book, and it seems to work), so there is no one-way trap-doors that allow someone to monopolize the work.<br />
<br />
It would seem that this would qualify as an objectively measurable definition of "Free". I thought you might find this useful, but didn't want to put my own works into your wiki. Conflict of interest, and all that. If this is useful, someone can put it in your main page. If it's not, then feel free to leave it out.<br />
<br />
[[User:GregLondon|GregLondon]] 00:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: Upload not functional ==<br />
<br />
Make the uploaded files directory writable please, I cannot upload files. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:44, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Save It ==<br />
<br />
Can we save it to a music CD<br />
<br />
==Box at top==<br />
Should be (+ "a" or + "the" as the 3rd word):<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is a stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}} [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] 23:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:"the" added, thank you! [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 13:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: favicon ==<br />
<br />
Please add the logo as a favicon, it's hard to find this site between lots of tabs... --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 17:01, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Mako]] has added this. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 20:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=5016
Talk:Definition
2008-09-11T00:41:21Z
<p>Angela Beesley: </p>
<hr />
<div>== What about the applicable law? ==<br />
<br />
If a license has a clause about the applicable law, is the license free?<br />
In my opinion, this clause is a problem because only the people that know a certain law can understand license's implied sides.<br />
<br />
: I think CC are working on licenses covered by Berne/WIPO law only. But a license needs a jurisdiction to avoid confusion or argument over terms and meaning, so in this case having a jurisdiction may protect freedom. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 20:06, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== First Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
I had some issues with the definition of free content here. Firstly, the document attempts to define "free content" as so many have done in the past, yet there is no clear definition of what is and isn't free content in the "free content movement" you discuss. It concerns me that a definition is being created in isolation from the wider community without proper discussion.<br />
<br />
I see the definition here models itself on the free software definition, but misses several important and fundamental aspects:<br />
<br />
How does the definition handle digital works (such as images, documents, etc) versus non-digitual works (such as hard-copy books, paintings, sculptures, etc)?<br />
<br />
How should digital works be treated? A digital work, such as a wordprocessor document, can be viewed in two ways: firstly, as a work in and of itself, i.e. content, but also as a piece of software itself that can display a final work. Should you only have the freedom to study a work (content), or should you also have the freedom to study how a work was created (software)?<br />
<br />
The definition talks about the freedom to make and release (distribute?) modifications but it doesn't say anything about source copies of work. I can think of several examples where the freedom to make modifications can be provided, but without a source copy of a work (i.e. in the format preferred for making modifications) making modifications could be prohibitive:<br />
<br />
* Protected PDF - sure, decrypting such a PDF is possible but its a) tricky to export a PDF to a format that can be modified with all the information intact (images, tables, etc), and b) it may be illegal to decrypt protected PDFs in certain juristictions (DMCA?)<br />
* Text content as image files - a user could allow users the freedom to modify his written works but only distribute them in image format. It is difficult for downstream users to then extract the text content<br />
<br />
You also talk about "free content licenses" where you should really be talking about free content works: a license enables a free content work, but<br />
<br />
Free experession is not the same as free content: you can have the right to free expresssion without having free content, and free content does not guarantee free expression.<br />
<br />
I hope this is helpful. --[[User:Rgladwell|Rgladwell]] 20:25, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for your comments. If you don't mind, I will move them to [[Talk:Definition/Unstable]] and respond there, just to have all comments in one place. First thoughts: You raise a very good point. Is it possible for something to be free content without the "source code" (or something equivalent) being available? Under the current definition, it is. Perhaps we need to find a wording that requires source availabiliy where such sources are essential to modifying the work. More later,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:42, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I've dispatched some of the comments into their own sections in Definition/Unstable. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:16, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Is there somewhere I can sign? -rhY-<br />
<br />
::In terms of source requirements, should it be more along the lines of source must be supplied where it existed in the making of the derivative and in the case of simple copies, if source was available for the original?<br />
<br />
Wow ... you even frame/structure Talk?! ... meh. Anyhow, ''nota'': you have Definition as your default index (wrong ... on basic principle, wrong ... you program? think trampolene) but Definition links to the rest of the site very very poorly. --BenTrem [[User:68.148.26.220|68.148.26.220]] 01:07, 25 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== versioning ==<br />
License 333 and version 0.66 -- it is a sign! Excellent.<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Open Knowledge Definition ==<br />
<br />
Last september/october the [http://www.okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation] 'ported' the Open Source Definiton to produce the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition] ([http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html full text]).<br />
<br />
This came out of various discussions with people working on open geodata, open access, and open databases of scientific data. As I wrote then:<br />
<br />
"The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) provides an answer to the question: what is open knowledge? It puts forward, in a simple and clear manner, principles that define open knowledge and which open knowledge licenses must satisfy.<br />
<br />
The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access' journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential blurring of what is open and what is not.<br />
<br />
In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition, by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in achieving these ends."<br />
<br />
I therefore think this new initiative is a big step forward at a time, when at least to judge from my experience of debates about the CC license at Free Culture UK, there is no clear consensus about terms such as 'Free Content' (and therefore no consensus about the norms of the community).<br />
<br />
Given the common interest in these issues I'd very much like to get further involved in the FCED -- and parhaps also look at a way to merge the OKD and the FCED.<br />
<br />
--RufusPollock<br />
<br />
<br />
== My take ==<br />
<br />
:''"Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other works do not benefit from artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely."''<br />
<br />
I think this needs some revising. Production and quality do not benefit from artificial scarcity- individual works may very much so benefit. The last sentence needs some amending- Free content is not just used Freely, but ''more''. An important distinction to my mind.<br />
<br />
:#''the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression''<br />
:#''the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies ''<br />
<br />
This freedom isn't very clear. Does this involve not charging, or are "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fees acceptable?<br />
<br />
::My take on this question: those fees are not acceptable as normally understood. But it does not involve not charging either. For instance, in Free Software, you can charge whatever you can manage when someone obtains a copy from you. That you cannot do is make them pay you a fee when they then make copies of that copy for themselves.<br />
<br />
:''"Any original work of authorship is copyrighted. Under copyright law, authors are considered God-like "creators" and are given legal powers they can use against those who duplicate "their" content in altered or unaltered form."''<br />
<br />
Personally, I'd like a bit of a mention of the artificiality of copyright. That first line certainly makes it sound like copyright is a God-given natural right. <br />
<br />
More generally, the attribution section strikes me as troublesome. What happens if I take an article, on Fujiwara no Teika, say, which is a stub, and work like the dickens on it, until it is orders of magnitude larger, such that there is not so much as a single word in common with the original article? Should the first person still be credited as the original author? --maru ([[User:129.21.121.235|129.21.121.235]] 06:47, 6 May 2006 (CEST))<br />
<br />
== Adelphi ==<br />
<br />
Please also consult the [http://www.adelphicharter.org/ Adelphi charter].<br />
<br />
And regarding Public domain there is also the concept of "gemeinfrei"/common free in droit' auteur regulation. <br />
i.e. public property vs. free to use<br />
<br />
==The freedom to use and perform the work==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see the word "display" added to this since perform covers music and plays while display would cover films and pictures.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:46, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Since we speak of ''any use, private or public'', and all related rights, this is covered, but I agree that we can & should explicitly enumerate it in the next version.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Discussion list ==<br />
<br />
Is it possible to host the discussion list elsewhere than Google Groups? Not everyone wants to centralize their activity in a Google account. Not to mention that plain-jane Mailman archives are so much more usable than Google's system. Thanks. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:44, 16 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:I can host a mailman list for this on Wikia if there's no objection to that. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 14:18, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks for the offer - but I'd prefer to host the list with Mako. He's already offered to set up a list for us. As a private company in the wiki space which, I hope, will one day adopt the definition, I don't want Wikia to be seen as in any way influencing its content (same reason I wouldn't host the list with Wikimedia).--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks, anything resembling a normal mailing-list with public archives will be ok. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:31, 18 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Metaphor suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to thank the developers of this definition for clearly distinguishing between works that are truly free, and those that are only semi-free. One thing the concept lacks, though, is a simple metaphor as in "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech", that can be used to illustrate the basic distinction of this paradigm in a non-technical way. Not sure if such a thing belongs in an official definition, but I think it's something we should have around. I think I might have come up with something helpful, which is explained in the passage below:<br />
<br />
''Many licenses are called "free", but they are free in different ways. One has to ask, is a work "free to pamphlet" or "free to marionette"? A "free to pamphlet" work may be free to hand out copies (while rewriting or sale is restricted), but a "free to marionette" work is free to adapt into a marionette show, and to sell tickets at the door to rent the theatre and feed the hungry puppetteers.''--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 00:03, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: I think that is a nice metaphor for an essay. I would encourage you to draft an essay here -- I hope that, like the GNU site, freedomdefined.org will eventually be a solid collection of philosophical material.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:13, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I've written something at [[Free to marionette]]. Not sure where it goes in the structure, though.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 09:29, 24 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I've collected that and some other material I found here at [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]. There didn't seem to be any established place for such material till now, so I just went ahead and created one.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 08:01, 10 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Source data ==<br />
<br />
I think the source data section will still need some work to deal with cases where such data is simply not obtainable; IMHO that should not make the work non-free.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:11, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think this is a very tricky part. The source vs. binary duality is very different in the case of a creative work. If I took a photo of a flower would the source data be the flower itself, the raw format of the photo, or would the jpg be enough? If I released a png after adjusting the white balance, would I still have to release the raw format for a work to be free and be excused only if I happen to 'accidentally' destroy the raw data? I think that as long as a work is editable the source data is irrelevant. In the case of software, not releasing source places a technical impediment to modifying the work. In the case of a 3D scene this might also be the case, but in the case of an image it is clearly not. In the case of an audio file, or a film, would the author have to release the off cuts? I would not think so. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 16:07, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think is this fine to distinguish between works where there are no "source data" and where there is. A not yet fleshed-out thought is that anything that can be modified non-destructively should be available for distribution in the preferred form for modification. [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:28, 27 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Copyleft suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to see a [[discussion of copyleft]] and what it needs to have to promote / protect a pool of Free Works.<br />
<br />
==Moral rights==<br />
<br />
There are some moral rights (''droit d'auteur'' not ''copyright'') that I have as an author and due to legal restriction I can't waive them. Does this make my work unfree? This page or [[Permissible restrictions]] does not address this issue.<br />
<br />
PS. You may call me old fashioned, but I don't think sentences like these give a mature and intelligent impression: "They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how 'their content' can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies." [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Samulili Samulili from Wikimedia projects]<br />
:I agree, the hostility is unnecessary and immature. [[User:130.58.68.159|130.58.68.159]] 22:47, 1 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:In my opinion, moral rights do not make your own work un-free, because they don't forbid other people to e.g. make modifications, they allow you to oppose some modifications on a case by case basis. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:21, 6 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Commercial Restrictions==<br />
<br />
What about some restrictions on the commercial distribution of a work? That is, a free culture work can be copied and those copies can be shared but with some restrictions on selling those copies when permission is not granted.<br />
<br />
:That isn't free content. Commercial Restrictions are explicitly not [[permissible restrictions]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 18:20, 3 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== In the summary... ==<br />
<br />
considered "free." --> considered "free".--[[User:Alnokta|Alnokta]] 20:47, 9 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== "god-like creators"? ==<br />
<br />
From the definition: "In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used."<br />
<br />
Is this even true? The purpose of Western copyright law is not meant to prop authors upon some pedestal to be worshiped, but to provide direct incentives for them to publish in the first place. Thus society benefits from the all-rights-reserved work, even if to a lesser extent than if work was freely licensed. I recall at least one US Supreme Court case finding that the primary purpose of copyright/patents is to provide for the benefit of society, and secondly to reward the author if he/she so chooses. Congress has made policy decisions to exempt works of federal employees from copyright, provide for "fair usage", and set (generous) copyright duration limits.<br />
<br />
My incentive to publish most of my work under free licenses is to promote a progressive international society. I expect that the Congress that passed the original version of copyright law shared the same values, as they have created the foundation which makes our work possible. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] (Who is not a lawyer.) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:True, but one has to appreciate the significant difference between original intentions and truth on the ground. I believe that the '''Original''' intentions of the people who first came up with the idea of copyright where not to different from ours, when taken in the context of the period. Yet, I think that legislative development is an evolutionary process, and evolutionary process exist in a state of equilibrium which can become unstable, at which point a fork (not dissimilar to a source code fork) tends to occur. <br />
:I think that in the case of Creative Works this fork has occurred (with the emergence of the internet as the critical factor driving the imbalance) with the "Freedom Culture" and the "IP protectionist Culture" as its two branches, both relying on the same resource, namely "Copyright laws" to archive their goals. Therefore, it is very important to make it absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture", by stating the state of affairs as they are today, not based n original intentions. On the other hand a '''Definition''' ought not to rely on emotionally charged statements to provide its information. I think that statement needs to be changed not because of what it tries to convey, but because of how it does it ... because at the end of the day the medium ''is'' the message. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:27, 13 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::By "truth on the ground," do you mean to say that aggressive copyright compliance has historically increased? The idea is plausible, but I am interested in seeing direct evidence of such a claim.<br />
<br />
::I agree that making "absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture"" is terribly important. I also posit that we should respect both and acknowledge that "free" is not always appropriate. The author needs to make that choice, a choice partially informed by freedomdefined.org. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 16:04, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::By the "truth on the ground" I mean the actual legislation and regulations that are in effect today that are supposed to implement that original intention, as well as case law, actual enforcement, the current context particularly asyncronisity with the digital media, adequacy in view of globalisation etc ... and current public perception of those intentions <br />
<br />
:::So, in short, I think we are agreeing. Where I do tend to differ slightly is on the appropriatness of freedom. I think that while in the current situation ""free" is not always appropriate", this in not necessary to the human condition, but rather and incidental effect of history. On the other hand a definition like this needs to address the here and now, and not some potential state-of-affairs where humanity enjoys universal intellectual freedom. But, again, we mostly agree see [[Talk:FAQ#What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos?|here]] for e.g. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 18:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::::Yes. I should add that I am one to enjoy history :-) I'll catch you around, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Why the sneering tone towards authorship anyway? Free Content isn't about limiting author's rights, it's about convincing people that it's better for authors to share, not that they're misguided in wanting some control at all. It's really all about the author's control over the work, because without it an author couldn't say "you must follow the GPL" any more than he could say 'no copying.' [[User:130.58.194.111|130.58.194.111]] 05:08, 22 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Photos should not be modified ==<br />
<br />
There are legal restrictions on the use and modification of photos, especially if they show living people. Personality rights in many countries do not allow to use photos in a way that could be regarded as libel. Photos of buildings or industrial products do not include the right to reproduce them. So the definition of free photos should be less permissive than the current definition and should not include the right of unlimited changes. --[[User:84.137.109.177|84.137.109.177]] 21:28, 19 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Does this need to be in the definition? Surely, all free cultural works are subject to other laws. Free software programs that capture photos in such a way that is governed by personality rights would be affected by those laws, but that doesn't make the software non-free or require the free software defintion, or a license for that matter, to include a clause about personality rights. If the definition, or a license, were to include clauses about every other possible law, there would be no point. What about child pornography, for example?<br />
: Good point, but I don't think it ought to be in the definition. --[[User:Balleyne|Balleyne]] 00:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trademarks? ==<br />
<br />
There is no mention of trademark restrictions in this article. Does the section '''No other restrictions or limitations''' also include trademark restrictions? To give an example, the [[w:Empire State Building]] is protected by trademark restrictions, so it is not "free of limitations". Is a photo of it -- a photo that was released by the photographer under a free license -- to be considered "free" according to the definition? / [[commons:User:Fred J]] 17:55, 29 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:This is an excellent question. The best example I can think of is Linux, which is obviously freely-licensed and yet there was a huge controversy and court case surrounding the trademark issue. See [[w:Linux|Copyright, licensing and the Linux trademark]] and [http://news.com.com/Torvalds+weighs+in+on+Linux+trademark+row/2100-7344_3-5841222.html]. Usually it's not a problem, but the trademark issue can make things complicated. Wikipedia, which is GFDl of course, uses trademarks all the time, and has a disclaimer about it: [[w:Wikipedia:General_disclaimer]]. [[w:User:Nadav1]] 16:06, 31 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::See also [[:m:User talk:Eloquence#Licensing policy: request for clarification]], where I had asked Erik Möller for a clarification regarding that point. The issue goes beyond trademarks. Photographs of people, for instance, cannot be used in advertising without the subject's express consent in many countries, AFAIK (personality rights). What about design protection? And so on... [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 11:15, 1 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Wiki content license ==<br />
<br />
This is terrible, you selected some license, which is still in heavy 'development' to license the content and didn't even say '2.5 or later'. Please! Use instead something like the gnu project does with "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." at the end of each page. Who can actually decide such a change in this wiki?!? --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: What substantial problem do you see with CC-BY 2.5? I agree that we should add the "any later version" clause, though technically that's problematic at this point.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 11:09, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Selecting ONE license of many for this definition of content freedom marks this one license special. Why CCby2.5? Why not FAL (LAL) 1.2? Why not GFDL? Why not GPL? If there should be a license for the definition's content at all, it should be every single of the accepted 'free content' licenses (are the ones on the licenses page valid free content licenses?) or something extremely simple and permissive as what the GNU project uses for it's web text content. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 20:33, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::PS: A terrible solution would be something like "every change made starting with 04. Dec 2007 is licensed under all of the following licenses and any of their later versions"<br />
<br />
Doesn't CC-BY 2.5 itself say that it can be relicensed under any later version (and any national version)?<br />
<br />
Allowing reuse of content under any free cultural work license would be certainly wiser, though. It's a bit strange that free cultural works are not permitted to include the definition of free cultural works (unless they use cc-by license, and only that). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 22:53, 23 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Why can't they? The cc-by license isn't a "share alike" license. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: The cc-by still has a freaking load of text in it and this is a problem. The free software definition is licensed under "Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." that's ''it''. overkill is the right word. read [http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/texinfo/Verbatim-Copying-License.html#Verbatim-Copying-License this]. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Existing exemptions ==<br />
<br />
''Free Culture Licenses do not take rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.''<br />
<br />
What exactly does this section intend to state? In the strict sense, a license can never limit an exemption (thats why it is called an exemption). If it's meant in a more general sense, saying that FC licenses are not intended to limit your rights, thats not quite true: they do limit your right to relicense derivative works.<br />
<br />
For example, some countries have a concept called panorama freedom: photos made of copyrighted buildings and statues do not need permission from the copyright owner. Thus if somebody takes a picture of a statue, he can treat it as if it were fully his own work: sell it for money, grant limited distribution rights etc. If the statue was under a free "viral" license, that license would explicitly forbid this (the photo being a derivative work). Thus free licenses ''can'' take away rights (not freedoms though; actually they take away your right to reduce the freedom of others to use your work). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 01:35, 24 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
==An Objective Definition of Free?==<br />
<br />
I've written two books about copyright, (http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/index.htm) "Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP Law" and (http://www.greglondon.com/libre/index.htm) Libre Labyrinth". Both are licensed CC-BY. "Bounty Hunters" is more geared towards understanding how to find copyright laws that are fair for All Rights Reserved applications and how Free/Libre/Open projects fit into that context. "Libre Labyrinth" focuses on objectively describing and comparing different Free/Libre/Open licenses.<br />
<br />
The GNU-GPL is graphed out on pages 40 and 41 of "Libre Labyrinth". The main point is that all the "rooms" (all the areas that could be monopolized through some IP law) are open to one another. All the "doors" have been taken off the hinges (it's a bit of an odd metaphor for explaing Venn Diagrams that include allowed state transistions, but it's explained in the beginning of the book, and it seems to work), so there is no one-way trap-doors that allow someone to monopolize the work.<br />
<br />
It would seem that this would qualify as an objectively measurable definition of "Free". I thought you might find this useful, but didn't want to put my own works into your wiki. Conflict of interest, and all that. If this is useful, someone can put it in your main page. If it's not, then feel free to leave it out.<br />
<br />
[[User:GregLondon|GregLondon]] 00:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: Upload not functional ==<br />
<br />
Make the uploaded files directory writable please, I cannot upload files. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:44, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Save It ==<br />
<br />
Can we save it to a music CD<br />
<br />
==Box at top==<br />
Should be (+ "a" or + "the" as the 3rd word):<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is a stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}} [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] 23:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:"the" added, thank you! [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 13:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: favicon ==<br />
<br />
Please add the logo as a favicon, it's hard to find this site between lots of tabs... --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 17:01, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Mako]] has added this. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 20:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=FAQ&diff=4996
FAQ
2008-09-10T05:32:34Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 222.251.133.59 (Talk); changed back to last version by Angela Beesley</p>
<hr />
<div>== Is there really a need for this? We already have so many licenses. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content and Expression Definition is not a license, it is a list of conditions under which a work must be available in order to be considered "free". In other words, it is a way to classify existing licenses. At the time the first draft of the definition was published (May 1, 2006), no such definition existed for free content (two definitions existed for free software).<br />
<br />
== So what do I need to put my work under this definition then? ==<br />
<br />
As the definition is not a license, but only classifies which licenses can be considered free, you have to pick one of these [[licenses]] and apply them to your work (usually by attaching a text such as "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license" with a link to the license text). If you want to express your support for free content, you can [[logos and buttons|help us design logos and buttons]].<br />
<br />
== What are the primary uses of this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are two primary goals:<br />
# To bring unity and clarity to the growing free content and free expression movements. We believe that a successful social movement must first define its goals and its vision and then communicate these to others. The definition helps with the first part while logos and other awareness materials can help with the second. Finally, while this website is not a community site in the traditional sense, it may help to bring together people from different free content projects, and could lead to new web sites and organizations specifically targeted at the free content movement.<br />
# To make communications with copyright holders more effective. Often, people state that their work is "free", "open content", or "open access", without qualifying this. The Creative Commons licenses are a good example of this: the Creative Commons logo simply states, generically, "Some Rights Reserved", and you have to click on he logo to find out which ones. It is very common for people to simply say that their work is [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22under+a+Creative+Commons+license%22 "under a Creative Commons license"]. This can mean many things, including, in the extreme cases, licenses which restrict the use of a work to certain world regions, or which forbid both commercial use and derivative works. This definition allows you to simply ask: "Is it ''free content''?". When the answer is "yes", you'll know precisely which rights you have.<br />
<br />
== Aren't you pretty arrogant for wanting to decide for everyone what's free? ==<br />
<br />
We are basing our work on the existing philosophies of free software and open source, on the existing policies of projects like [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]], and on a strong moral conviction that as many works as reasonably possible should be available to all human beings, as freely as possible. People are welcome to release their works as something other than Free Content or Free Expression. In the short term, most people will. Many will try to use "semi-free" licenses.<br />
<br />
Of course, we do not claim or seek a monopoly on the word "free". You are free (no pun intended) to use these terms as you wish, to argue for a different set of essential freedoms, or to attempt to redirect this definition by working with us. You are welcome to create your own term, defined differently, and use that.<br />
<br />
== Why don't you have any moderators who are professional (NAME PROFESSION)? ==<br />
<br />
It may be that the right person hasn't volunteered yet. More importantly though, it's important to realize that we can't have a professional novelist, and a musician, and a lawyer, and a DJ, and a painter, and a collage artist, and a dancer, etc. There aren't that many spaces for moderators. Of course, we welcome feedback from every individual or group and are especially careful to take into account viewpoints that we think are unrepresented or new.<br />
<br />
With that said, everyone involved in this project, and especially the moderators, produces, consumes, and distributes content or expression every day. While some of the freedoms listed here are freedoms designed primarily for the producers, we are also talking about the consumers of content and working hard to blur the lines between the two groups. We are all stakeholders in the process and we all -- creators, consumers, and most of us that are both -- have a voice that should be heard. The moderators have been picked not because they are particular representative of the world of creators as a group but because they respected, principled, in touch with much larger groups of creators, and willing to take into account others' opinions.<br />
<br />
== But how will people make money under this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are many ways that people make money distributing free content and expression. They tend to differ based on the type of work and many other factors. Of course, the point of this definition is not to list these (although someone could create a page in this wiki to do exactly that). The point is to describe essential freedom. Once we have challenged ourselves to produce and consume content and expression more ethically, it becomes our ''responsibility'' to find ways to do so that are economically sustainable. Unless we challenge ourselves, there is a much lower incentive to ever go out on a limb and try.<br />
<br />
We also want to point out that the exact same question can be asked about the current copyright system. Most authors do not make a substantial amount of money from their works (many do not even make money at all). Some authors do manage to make money, but at the price of totally giving up control of their works to producers or corporations (especially in the USA, where total transfer of all rights by contract is possible and moral rights do not exist practically). Many artists of high value remained poor during much of their life, because their talent was recognized too late. Thus the question of ''how authors can make money from their work'' is not tied to the mere licensing model of the work (free vs. not free), but to the economic system surrounding authorship and to the social and cultural conditions of recognition.<br />
<br />
== What about logos? Why do all open source / free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? ==<br />
<br />
Many organisations like Creative Commons, the Open Source Initiative, or Wikimedia like to protect their identity using trademarks and copyrights. It should be noted that relatively few people in these organisations are opposed to copyright ''per se''; in fact, the [[w:copyleft|copyleft]] principle makes use of copyright to protect the freedom of works. The argument of these organisations is not one against copyright, but one for additional freedoms. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, a case can be made that logos and symbols should be freely shared, and that trademarks should be avoided -- taking the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToFork "right to fork"] to an extreme. Under this model, the identity of the project is not protected by law, and anyone can try to assume the same identity by adopting it for a different project. The marketplace of ideas is the final arbiter of success. This is true for the free content logo we're trying to create, which will be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
== What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). This category is legally but also philosophically justified: creation of works - art works, free software works, free hardware design, machine design, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. Various other kinds of commons (like material commons) do not belong to this category.<br />
<br />
Since we are not proposing a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing) but a Definition (which must be based on firm conceptual ground ;-)), trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message would destroy the meaning of the message and transform it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful. <br />
<br />
We encourage other people to try and give a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. But we cannot do it in the framework of this Definition, because the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents.<br />
<br />
== Who wrote this? Who administers the site? ==<br />
<br />
== Why isn't a Non-Commercial restriction considered free?==<br />
Some ideas:<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/11/08/why-the-nc-permission-culture-simply-doesnt-work/ Why the NC permission culture simply doesn't work]<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/24/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft/ Non-commercial ShareAlike is not copyleft]<br />
* [http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2006/chapter_06/osjb2006-06-02-en-moeller.pdf ''Erik Möller'', The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons NC License]<br />
<br />
==Why isn't a NoDerivatives restriction considered free?==</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=FAQ&diff=4966
FAQ
2008-09-05T09:53:57Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 62.171.194.42 (Talk); changed back to last version by Spiritia</p>
<hr />
<div>== Is there really a need for this? We already have so many licenses. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content and Expression Definition is not a license, it is a list of conditions under which a work must be available in order to be considered "free". In other words, it is a way to classify existing licenses. At the time the first draft of the definition was published (May 1, 2006), no such definition existed for free content (two definitions existed for free software).<br />
<br />
== So what do I need to put my work under this definition then? ==<br />
<br />
As the definition is not a license, but only classifies which licenses can be considered free, you have to pick one of these [[licenses]] and apply them to your work (usually by attaching a text such as "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license" with a link to the license text). If you want to express your support for free content, you can [[logos and buttons|help us design logos and buttons]].<br />
<br />
== What are the primary uses of this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are two primary goals:<br />
# To bring unity and clarity to the growing free content and free expression movements. We believe that a successful social movement must first define its goals and its vision and then communicate these to others. The definition helps with the first part while logos and other awareness materials can help with the second. Finally, while this website is not a community site in the traditional sense, it may help to bring together people from different free content projects, and could lead to new web sites and organizations specifically targeted at the free content movement.<br />
# To make communications with copyright holders more effective. Often, people state that their work is "free", "open content", or "open access", without qualifying this. The Creative Commons licenses are a good example of this: the Creative Commons logo simply states, generically, "Some Rights Reserved", and you have to click on he logo to find out which ones. It is very common for people to simply say that their work is [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22under+a+Creative+Commons+license%22 "under a Creative Commons license"]. This can mean many things, including, in the extreme cases, licenses which restrict the use of a work to certain world regions, or which forbid both commercial use and derivative works. This definition allows you to simply ask: "Is it ''free content''?". When the answer is "yes", you'll know precisely which rights you have.<br />
<br />
== Aren't you pretty arrogant for wanting to decide for everyone what's free? ==<br />
<br />
We are basing our work on the existing philosophies of free software and open source, on the existing policies of projects like [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]], and on a strong moral conviction that as many works as reasonably possible should be available to all human beings, as freely as possible. People are welcome to release their works as something other than Free Content or Free Expression. In the short term, most people will. Many will try to use "semi-free" licenses.<br />
<br />
Of course, we do not claim or seek a monopoly on the word "free". You are free (no pun intended) to use these terms as you wish, to argue for a different set of essential freedoms, or to attempt to redirect this definition by working with us. You are welcome to create your own term, defined differently, and use that.<br />
<br />
== Why don't you have any moderators who are professional (NAME PROFESSION)? ==<br />
<br />
It may be that the right person hasn't volunteered yet. More importantly though, it's important to realize that we can't have a professional novelist, and a musician, and a lawyer, and a DJ, and a painter, and a collage artist, and a dancer, etc. There aren't that many spaces for moderators. Of course, we welcome feedback from every individual or group and are especially careful to take into account viewpoints that we think are unrepresented or new.<br />
<br />
With that said, everyone involved in this project, and especially the moderators, produces, consumes, and distributes content or expression every day. While some of the freedoms listed here are freedoms designed primarily for the producers, we are also talking about the consumers of content and working hard to blur the lines between the two groups. We are all stakeholders in the process and we all -- creators, consumers, and most of us that are both -- have a voice that should be heard. The moderators have been picked not because they are particular representative of the world of creators as a group but because they respected, principled, in touch with much larger groups of creators, and willing to take into account others' opinions.<br />
<br />
== But how will people make money under this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are many ways that people make money distributing free content and expression. They tend to differ based on the type of work and many other factors. Of course, the point of this definition is not to list these (although someone could create a page in this wiki to do exactly that). The point is to describe essential freedom. Once we have challenged ourselves to produce and consume content and expression more ethically, it becomes our ''responsibility'' to find ways to do so that are economically sustainable. Unless we challenge ourselves, there is a much lower incentive to ever go out on a limb and try.<br />
<br />
We also want to point out that the exact same question can be asked about the current copyright system. Most authors do not make a substantial amount of money from their works (many do not even make money at all). Some authors do manage to make money, but at the price of totally giving up control of their works to producers or corporations (especially in the USA, where total transfer of all rights by contract is possible and moral rights do not exist practically). Many artists of high value remained poor during much of their life, because their talent was recognized too late. Thus the question of ''how authors can make money from their work'' is not tied to the mere licensing model of the work (free vs. not free), but to the economic system surrounding authorship and to the social and cultural conditions of recognition.<br />
<br />
== What about logos? Why do all open source / free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? ==<br />
<br />
Many organisations like Creative Commons, the Open Source Initiative, or Wikimedia like to protect their identity using trademarks and copyrights. It should be noted that relatively few people in these organisations are opposed to copyright ''per se''; in fact, the [[w:copyleft|copyleft]] principle makes use of copyright to protect the freedom of works. The argument of these organisations is not one against copyright, but one for additional freedoms. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, a case can be made that logos and symbols should be freely shared, and that trademarks should be avoided -- taking the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToFork "right to fork"] to an extreme. Under this model, the identity of the project is not protected by law, and anyone can try to assume the same identity by adopting it for a different project. The marketplace of ideas is the final arbiter of success. This is true for the free content logo we're trying to create, which will be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
== What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). This category is legally but also philosophically justified: creation of works - art works, free software works, free hardware design, machine design, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. Various other kinds of commons (like material commons) do not belong to this category.<br />
<br />
Since we are not proposing a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing) but a Definition (which must be based on firm conceptual ground ;-)), trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message would destroy the meaning of the message and transform it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful. <br />
<br />
We encourage other people to try and give a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. But we cannot do it in the framework of this Definition, because the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents.<br />
<br />
== Who wrote this? Who administers the site? ==<br />
<br />
== Why isn't a Non-Commercial restriction considered free?==<br />
Some ideas:<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/11/08/why-the-nc-permission-culture-simply-doesnt-work/ Why the NC permission culture simply doesn't work]<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/24/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft/ Non-commercial ShareAlike is not copyleft]<br />
* [http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2006/chapter_06/osjb2006-06-02-en-moeller.pdf ''Erik Möller'', The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons NC License]<br />
<br />
==Why isn't a NoDerivatives restriction considered free?==</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Portal:Music&diff=4964
Portal:Music
2008-09-05T03:50:59Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by Tacotico (Talk); changed back to last version by 190.138.58.195</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Portals}}<br />
<br />
==Recorded audio==<br />
drew Roberts has some spoken word works under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.<br />
<br />
They can be found here: [http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%28creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22%29%20OR%20%28collection%3A%28ourmedia%29%20AND%20%2Fmetadata%2Fauthor%3A%28drew%20Roberts%29%29 some of drew's stuff]<br />
<br />
Some people have made some music using some of these - [http://musicians.opensrc.org/DrewRoberts look here for the music.]<br />
<br />
Loca Records releases all music on the label as CC-BY-SA (though there are some older works that are EFF Open Audio and GPL'd). [http://www.locarecords.com Loca Records Website]<br />
<br />
The quick way into their downloads is [http://www.locarecords.com/music Loca Music as MP3/Ogg]<br />
<br />
==Scores and resources==<br />
The [http://www.cpdl.org Choral Public Domain Library] is a great resource for choral scores, texts, and translations, in a variety of formats.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ Mutopia Project] contains classical scores under the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA license as well as public domain.<br />
<br />
==Sharing of free audio==<br />
*[http://en.theorasea.org/ Theora Sea] for works in open media. Also includes Free Cultural Works.<br />
*[http://www.redpanal.com/ RedPanal.com] Online community/Social Network about Collaborative Music & Collective Musical Creation. Free CC-by-2.5(Ar.) licensed audio recordings and free Cultural Works.<br />
(in spanish).</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Es&diff=4963
Definition/Es
2008-09-05T03:50:46Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by Tacotico (Talk); changed back to last version by 193.153.179.175</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
{{divbox|gray|Versión estable|Ésta es una traducción de la versión estable 1.0 de la definición. El número de versión se actualizará según se desarrolle la definición. La versión editable de la definición está disponible en [[Definition/Unstable]]. Vea [[authoring process| proceso de autoría]] para más información.}}<br />
<br />
== Resumen ==<br />
<br />
Este documento define «obras culturales libres» (''Free Cultural Works'') como obras o expresiones que pueden ser libremente estudiadas, aplicadas, copiadas y/o modificadas por cualquiera, para cualquier propósito. También describe ciertas restricciones admisibles que respetan o protegen esas libertades esenciales. La definición distingue entre ''obras libres'', y ''[[Licenses|licencias libres]]'' que pueden usarse para proteger legalmente el estatus de una obra libre. La propia definición ''no'' es una licencia, sino una herramienta para determinar si una obra o licencia debería considerarse «libre».<br />
<br />
== Preámbulo ==<br />
<br />
Los avances sociales y tecnológicos hacen posible para una cada vez mayor parte de la humanidad ''acceder, crear, modificar, publicar y distribuir'' diversos tipos de trabajos &mdash;obras de arte, materiales científicos y educativos, software, artículos&mdash; en resumen: ''cualquier cosa que se pueda representar digitalmente''. Se han creado muchas comunidades para ejercer estas nuevas posibilidades y crear una riqueza de obras reutilizables colectivamente.<br />
<br />
La mayoría de los autores, sin importar su campo de actividad, ni su condición de aficionado o profesional, tienen un auténtico interés por favorecer un ecosistema en el que las obras puedan propagarse, reusarse y derivarse de forma creativa. Cuanto más sencillo es reutilizar y derivar trabajos, más ricas se hacen nuestras culturas. <br />
<br />
Para asegurar el feliz funcionamiento de este ecosistema, los trabajos de autoría deberían ser '''libres''', y por ''libertad'' entendemos:<br />
* la '''libertad de usar''' el trabajo y disfrutar de los beneficios de su uso<br />
* la '''libertad de estudiar''' el trabajo y aplicar el conocimiento adquirido de él<br />
* la '''libertad de hacer y redistribuir copias''', totales o parciales, de la información o expresión<br />
* la '''libertad de hacer cambios y mejoras''', y distribuir los trabajos derivados<br />
<br />
Estas libertades deberían estar disponibles para cualquiera, en cualquier sitio, en cualquier momento. No deberían restringirse por el contexto en el cual se use el trabajo. La creatividad es el acto de usar un recurso existente de una forma no vislumbrada previamente.<br />
<br />
Sin embargo, en la mayoría de los países estas libertades no están reforzadas, sino suprimidas por las leyes comúnmente denominadas ''leyes de copyright''. Consideran a los autores como dioses creadores y les dan un monopolio exclusivo sobre cómo puede reutilizarse «su contenido». Este monopolio impide el florecimiento de la cultura, y ni siquiera ayuda a la situación económica de sus autores tanto como protege el modelo de negocio de las empresas editoras más poderosas.<br />
<br />
A pesar de esas leyes, los autores pueden hacer que sus trabajos sean libres escogiendo entre una vasta colección de documentos legales conocidos como [[w:es:licencia|licencias libres]]. Para un autor, poner su trabajo bajo una ''licencia libre'' no supone que pierda todos sus derechos, sino que da a cualquiera las libertades arriba expresadas.<br />
<br />
Es importante que toda obra que se diga libre otorgue, en la práctica y sin ningún riesgo, las mencionadas libertades. Ésta es la razón por la que a continuación damos una precisa '''definición de libertad''' para licencias y obras de autor.<br />
<br />
== Identificación de las obras culturales libres ==<br />
<br />
Ésta es la ''definición de obra cultural libre'', y al describir su trabajo, le animamos a que haga referencia a esta definición, algo como «Ésta es una obra con una licencia libre, como se explica en la ''definición de obra cultural libre''». Si no le gusta el término «obra cultural libre», puede usar el término genérico «contenido libre», o referirse en su lugar a uno de los [[Existing Movements|movimientos existentes]] que expresan libertades similares en contextos más específicos. También le animamos a que utilice los [[logos and buttons|logotipos y botones de obra cultural libre]], que están en el dominio público.<br />
<br />
Tenga presente que esa identificación ''no'' otorga los derechos descritos en esta definición; para que su obra sea verdaderamente libre, debe usar una de las [[Licenses|licencias]] de cultura libre o estar en el dominio público.<br />
<br />
Le animamos a que no use otros términos para identificar las obras culturales libres que no conlleven una definición clara de libertad, como «contenido abierto» o «de acceso abierto». Estos términos se usan con frecuencia para referirse a contenidos que están disponibles bajo términos «menos restrictivos» que los de las leyes de derechos de autor existentes, o incluso para obras que simplemente están «disponibles en la web».<br />
<br />
== Definición de licencias de cultura libre ==<br />
<br />
Las licencias son instrumentos legales por los que el propietario de ciertos derechos legales puede transferir estos derechos a terceras partes. Las licencias de cultura libre no quitan ningún derecho; su aceptación es siempre opcional, y si se aceptan, conceden libertades que las leyes de derechos de autor por sí solas no proporcionan. Cuando se aceptan, nunca limitan o reducen las exenciones existentes en las leyes de derechos sobre autor.<br />
<br />
=== Libertades esenciales ===<br />
<br />
Para ser reconocida como «libre» en conformidad a esta definición, una licencia debe otorgar las siguientes libertades sin cortapisas:<br />
<br />
* '''La libertad de usar y ejecutar la obra:''' Se debe permitir que el licenciatario haga todo tipo de uso, privado o público, de la obra. Para los tipos de trabajo en los que sea relevante, esta libertad debe incluir todos los usos derivados («derechos relacionados») como ejecutar o interpretar la obra. No debe haber excepciones que consideren, por ejemplo, cuestiones políticas o religiosas.<br />
* '''La libertad de estudiar la obra y aplicar la información:''' Se debe permitir que el licenciatario examine la obra y utilice en cualquier manera el conocimiento obtenido de la obra. La licencia no puede, por ejemplo, restringir la «ingeniería inversa».<br />
* '''La libertad de redistribuir copias:''' Las copias pueden venderse, intercambiarse o darse gratis, como parte una obra mayor, una colección, o independientemente. No debe haber límite a la cantidad de información que se puede copiar. Tampoco debe haber límites sobre quien puede copiar la información o donde puede copiarse.<br />
* '''La libertad de distribuir obras derivadas:''' Con objeto de dar a todo el mundo la posibilidad de mejorar una obra, la licencia no debe limitar la libertad de distribuir una versión modificada (o, para obras físicas, una obra derivada de alguna manera del original), sin importar la intención y propósito de dichas modificaciones. Sin embargo, se pueden aplicar algunas restricciones para proteger estas libertades esenciales o la atribución a los autores (vea más abajo).<br />
<br />
=== Restricciones admisibles ===<br />
<br />
No todas las restricciones sobre el uso o la distribución de obras impiden las libertades esenciales. En particular, los requisitos de atribución, de colaboración simétrica (es decir, «copyleft»), y de protección de las libertades esenciales se consideran [[permissible restrictions|restricciones admisibles]].<br />
<br />
== Definición de obra cultural libre ==<br />
<br />
Para que sea considerada libre, una obra ''debe'' estar cubierta por una licencia, o su estado legal ''debe'' proporcionar las mismas ''libertades esenciales'' enumeradas anteriormente. Sin embargo, no es una condición suficiente. De hecho, una obra específica puede ser no-libre de otras maneras que restrinjan las libertades esenciales. Éstas son las condiciones adicionales para que una obra sea considerada libre:<br />
<br />
* '''Disponibilidad de los datos fuente:''' Si un trabajo final ha sido obtenido mediante la compilación o procesamiento de uno o varios ficheros fuente, todos los datos fuente subyacentes deben estar disponibles junto con el propio trabajo bajo las mismas condiciones. Este puede ser la partitura de una composición musical, los modelos usados en una escena 3D, los datos de una publicación científica, el código fuente de una aplicación informática, o cualquier otra información similar.<br />
<br />
* '''Uso de un formato libre:''' Para los ficheros digitales, el formato en que se haga disponible el trabajo no debe estar protegido por patentes, salvo que se conceda un permiso libre de regalías, ilimitado, irrevocable y de ámbito mundial para hacer uso de la tecnología patentada. Si bien en ocasiones se pueden usar formatos no-libres por razones prácticas, ''debe'' estar disponible una copia en un formato libre para que el trabajo sea considerado libre.<br />
<br />
* '''Sin restricciones técnicas:''' La obra debe estar disponible de una forma en la que no se usen medidas técnicas para limitar las libertadas enumeradas anteriormente.<br />
<br />
* '''Sin otras restricciones o limitaciones:''' La propia obra no debe estar cubierta por restricciones legales (patentes, contratos, etc.) o limitaciones (como derechos de privacidad) que impidan las libertades enumeradas anteriormente. Una obra puede hacer uso de las existentes exenciones legales al copyright (para citar obras protegidas), pero sólo las partes de ella que sean libres sin ambigüedades constituyen una obra libre.<br />
<br />
En otras palabras, siempre que el usuario de una obra no pueda ejercitar legalmente o en la práctica sus libertades básicas, la obra no puede ser considerada ni llamarse «libre».<br />
<br />
== Véase también ==<br />
<br />
* Consulte [[Licenses]] para un examen de diversas licencias, y si cumplen esta definición o no.<br />
* Consulte [[History]] para los reconocimientos y trasfondo de esta definición.<br />
* Consulte las [[FAQ|Preguntas más frecuentes]] para algunas preguntas y sus respuestas.<br />
* Vea [[Portal:Index]] para páginas sobre temas específicos de las obras culturales libres.<br />
<br />
== Versiones ==<br />
<br />
Se publicarán nuevas versiones de esta definición tan pronto como se haya desarrollado un consenso (alcanzado directamente o por medio de una votación, como se indica en [[authoring process|proceso de autoría]]) sobre los cambios propuestos. La numeración será 0.x para los borradores iniciales, 1.x, 2.x... para las versiones principales, y x.1, x.2... para las versiones menores. Una versión menor es aquélla en la que el texto se modifica de manera que no tiene ningún impacto sobre las licencias, existentes o hipotéticas, cubiertas por esta definición.<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=4962
Licenses
2008-09-05T03:50:44Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by Tacotico (Talk); changed back to last version by Spiritia</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparison of Licenses ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1" style="width: 100%; text-align: center; border-collapse: collapse;"<br />
! License<br />
! [[#Intended scope|Intended scope]]<br />
! [[#Copyleft|Copyleft]]<br />
! [[#Practical modifiability|Practical modifiability]]<br />
! [[#Attribution|Attribution]]<br />
! [[#Related rights|Related rights]]<br />
! [[#Access control prohibition|Access control prohibition]]<br />
! [[#Worldwide applicability|Worldwide applicability]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Against DRM|Against DRM]]<br />
| Works of art<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| Exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution|Creative Commons Attribution]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations <br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike|Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Design Science License|Design Science License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally science data<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]<br />
| Works of art<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Exact translations (French law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU Lesser General Public License|GNU Lesser General Public License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally Software<br />
| {{partial|Weak}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU General Public License|GNU General Public License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally Software<br />
| {{yes|Strong}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Version 3 prohibits "Tivoisation" in certain cases}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Lizenz für Freie Inhalte|Lizenz für Freie Inhalte]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Unknown (license text is German)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| Software<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Criteria for choosing a license ==<br />
<br />
We explain hereafter some of the criteria which may influence your choice of a free content license. Those criteria are not inherently good or bad. The importance of each criteria depends on the context (for example the kind of work, or the kind of collaborative process you want to encourage), and on personal preferences.<br />
<br />
This list is not meant to be exhaustive. Other aspects may be important, like the clarity of the wording of a license, or the philosophy which is defended by its authors, or whether the license is surrounded by an active community of authors.<br />
<br />
Endly, we want to stress that, '''before choosing a license, you must read the license text carefully.''' No summary, no matter how attractive or reassuring, can replace detailed understanding of the license itself.<br />
<br />
=== Intended scope ===<br />
<br />
Some licenses strive to be as generic as is humanly (or rather, legally) possible. Others deliberately focus on a specific domain of creation, like software, or documentation. When a license has such a focus, it doesn't mean that it cannot be used for other kinds of works, but that its main area of use (and thus its social recognition as a trustable license) is clearly bounded.<br />
<br />
For example, the GNU GPL can be used for many kinds of works, but its main area of recognition is software.<br />
<br />
=== Copyleft ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sa.svg|48px]]<br />
<br />
When a work is "copylefted", it means all derived works (even if they mix in other works as well) must be distributed under the same terms (usually the same exact license) as the original work. Conversely, a non-copylefted work can be distributed under different terms, and even be rendered non-free.<br />
<br />
Therefore, using a copyleft license pretty much guarantees that users of subsequent works (for example modified copies) will be granted the same essential freedoms. On the other hand, a copyleft license can also limit opportunities for re-use, because most copyleft licenses are not compatible between each other. This is why people sometimes prefer non-copyleft license, depending on the work and the kind of practices they want to encourage.<br />
<br />
''ShareAlike'' is a synonym of ''copyleft'' in the Creative Commons vocabulary.<br />
<br />
Strong copyleft also forbids linking or integration the subject work into larger works/projects that are not also licensed with a license with compatible copyleft terms. Weak copyleft lacks such a 'viral copyleft' requirement.<br />
<br />
=== Practical modifiability ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sc.svg|48px]]<br />
<br />
Although all free licenses give you the ''legal'' right to modify, not all of them try to specify how modifiability of the work is ''practically'' enforced. [[Source Code|Requiring modifiability]] is important, especially for works which can be distributed under a completely opaque format such as software binary code (''"object code"'').<br />
<br />
The licenses which require practical modifiability usually define a notion of ''source code'', ''source data'' or similar. The GNU FDL defines ''transparent copies'' and disallows use of technological protection measures (TPM). The Creative Commons licenses disallow use of TPMs.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_by.svg|48px]]<br />
<br />
Requiring attribution means that authorship for the work must be recognized in any circumstances. In the context of derived works (modified copies), this includes the initial as well as subsequent authors and contributors.<br />
<br />
It is often stated that all licenses can implicitly require attribution, as they mandate that the copyright notice must be kept intact when distributing copies. By including up-to-date authorship information in the copyright notice, one can indeed forbid subsequent works to erase that information. However, future contributions to the work are not guaranteed to be also credited using such a mechanism; indeed, it is based on the good will of authors (or maintainers) of subsequent works. Having an Attribution requirement prevents this from happening and mandates that all subsequent works have the same policy in mentioning authorship.<br />
<br />
Attribution is a double-edged sword, as it may become a heavy burden to list all contributors for projects which imply seamless and massive collaboration (like Wikipedia). For many works it is, however, a reasonable requirement.<br />
<br />
=== Related rights ===<br />
<br />
''Related rights'' concern not the mere copying and modification of the work, but its use in a derived manner: for example, performing the work, displaying it in public or private, broadcasting, webcasting, etc. Related rights exist for various areas of creation (songs, theater...); they often belong to people other than the authors of the work, such as perfomers, producers of phonograms, etc.<br />
<br />
Some free content licenses take care to also grant related rights to the recipient of the work. There may even be a [[#Copyleft|copyleft]] provision which states that related works (interpretations, performances, recordings) must be released under the same license as the work.<br />
<br />
=== Access control prohibition ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_drm.svg|48px]]<br />
<br />
Some licenses contain a clause, which forbids to control access to the licensed content.<br />
In some licenses this clause concerns only the licensee (licensor can use access control systems to forbid not granted rights).<br />
<br />
=== Worldwide applicability ===<br />
<br />
When distributing a free work over the world, it is important to understand how people from other countries will be able to reuse this work.<br />
<br />
License writers have adopted three different strategies regarding the internationalization of their licenses:<br />
* ''same license for everyone'': only the original license text (often in English) is given legal value, and translations may be provided purely for information purposes;<br />
* ''exact translations'': translations of the original license text are provided, which all have legal value; those translations have exactly the same clauses and wording as the original text;<br />
* ''local adaptations'': the license is rewritten according to each national legal system.<br />
<br />
'''Attention: some licenses use a specific national law: so you cannot interpret the license through your national law, but through the law specified in the license.'''<br />
For example, Free Art License uses French law (you must pay attention to French law also if the license is written in English, German or other languages).<br />
<br />
The two first schemes ensure that everyone is given the same rights. In the third scheme (local adaptations), similarity and equivalence of the different versions should be carefully examined.<br />
<br />
According to advocates of the adaptation scheme, licenses must be rewritten in order to cope with the peculiarities of the various legal systems. This position is held by the Creative Commons organization.<br />
<br />
According to opponents of the adaptation scheme, having different national versions of a license presents the risk to break trust and interoperability. Also, they stress that the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works] provides a framework which, with careful drafting, allows to write internationally applicable license texts. This position is held by the Free Software Foundation and by the Free Art License authors.<br />
<br />
== List of licenses ==<br />
<br />
=== Against DRM ===<br />
<br />
* current version: 2.0<br />
* author: [http://www.freecreations.org Free Creations]<br />
* reference URL (English): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2.html <br />
* reference URL (Italian): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_it.html<br />
* reference URL (Spanish - Castilian): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_es1.html<br />
* reference URL (Spanish - Catalan): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_es2.html<br />
* reference URL (French): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_fr.html<br />
<br />
=== BSD-like non-copyleft licenses ===<br />
<br />
In parallel with the set of GNU licenses (including the [[#GNU GPL|GNU GPL]]), the [[Existing Movements#Free Software|free software]] world evolved a number of very simple non-copyleft licenses. These licenses are so simple that no dedicated text is needed to expose the terms of the license. To reuse such a license, you must take its text and replace the copyright notice with your own. Since these licenses are non-copyleft, changing the license text in such a way does not prevent reuse between works from happening.<br />
<br />
Regardless of their wording, these licenses always grant the user very broad rights, including the right to modify and distribute without supplying any source code. Also, their concise wording makes them simple to understand and unambiguous as to their effects.<br />
<br />
These licenses are often called "BSD-like" because the first occurence of such a license has been the license under which the Berkeley Software Distribution (one of the first free versions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix Unix]) was shipped to users.<br />
<br />
One should distinguish the original BSD license with its controversial ''[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html advertising clause]'' from the revised BSD license that does not have the advertising clause. <br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons Attribution ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: CC-BY<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: CC-BY-SA<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
<!-- <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"><br />
<Work rdf:about="urn:sha1:XCKBXFCIAIKUOW2D5JXEH3C5GFHUVHHL"><dc:date>2008</dc:date><dc:title>yung buttah</dc:title><dc:description></dc:description><dc:rights><Agent><dc:title>intro</dc:title></Agent></dc:rights><dc:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Sound" /><license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/" /></Work><br />
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/"><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/DerivativeWorks" /><prohibits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/CommercialUse" /><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/ShareAlike" /><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice" /></License><br />
</rdf:RDF> --><br />
<br />
=== Design Science License ===<br />
<br />
* ''Not maintained anymore''<ref></ref><br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== FreeBSD Documentation License ===<br />
<br />
* author: [http://www.freebsd.org/ FreeBSD Project]<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html]<br />
<br />
Although especially written for the FreeBSD project, this license shows you how to draft a very simple non-copyleft license for documentation works.<br />
<br />
=== Free Art License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: License Arte Libre, FAL, LAL<br />
* Current version: 1.3<br />
* author: [http://artlibre.org/ Copyleft Attitude]<br />
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ License text (English, version 1.2)]<br />
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/ License text (French)]<br />
<br />
=== GNU Free Documentation License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: GNU FDL, GFDL, FDL<br />
* Current version: 1.2<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
==== Invariant sections ====<br />
<br />
''Invariant sections'' are a special provision of the GFDL which, if used, prevent anyone from modifying the parts of the work which are defined as "invariant". The Free Software Foundation finds it useful to protect some special "non-functional" parts of the work, like a statement of intent (the motivation for invariant sections was, allegedly, to prevent the GNU Manifesto to be removed or modified in GNU documentations).<br />
<br />
We believe, however, that freedom should apply to all kind of works, and that what is "functional" in one situation can be "artistic" in another - and vice-versa. Consequently, a work using invariant sections to forbid some kinds of modifications to the work cannot be considered completely free.<br />
<br />
Unless additional permissions are granted, all FDL works contain unmodifiable sections which aren't called ''Invariant Sections'', such as a copy of the license embedded in the document itself.<br />
<br />
=== GNU General Public License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: GNU GPL, GPL<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
* Author: [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
The GNU GPL is, according to various statistics, probably the most used free software license. It was also the first license to implement the concept of [[#Copyleft|copyleft]], guaranteeing that "GPL'ed" free software cannot become, or take part in, non-free software.<br />
<br />
Although the GPL is primarily intended for software programs, it is worded so as to apply to many different kinds of works. The main condition for the GPL to be applicable to a type of work is that it admits the notion of a ''preferred form of a work for making modifications to it'' (be it source code in a computer language, music score notation, digital graphics under a format retaining structure, etc.). For example, there are many occurences of text or graphics released under the GPL.<br />
<br />
=== Lizenz für Freie Inhalte ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: LFFI<br />
* [http://www.neppstar.net/webstar/freieinhalte-webstar.html License Text (German)]<br />
<br />
AFAIK only used by the german portal neppstar for free music and video. Anyway, it seems to be a valid free license.<br />
<br />
=== MIT License ===<br />
<br />
* author: MIT<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/mit-license.php http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/mit-license.php]<br />
<br />
This license is arguably the simplest form of the BSD-like licenses for software. All the license, except for the no-warranty statement, is condensed in two short paragraphs.<br />
<br />
There are variants, like the [http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php current BSD license] which has an additional provision forbidding endorsement of derived works using the name of the original authors.<br />
<br />
=== Commentary on non-free licenses ===<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/NC|Essay about the Creative Commons non-commercial restriction]]</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Portal:Software&diff=4961
Portal:Software
2008-09-05T03:50:15Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by Tacotico (Talk); changed back to last version by Angela Beesley</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Portals}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free Software directories and repositories ==<br />
<br />
* The [http://directory.fsf.org/ Free Software Directory] is a project of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Its aim is to "''catalog useful free software that runs under free operating systems — particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants''".<br />
<br />
* There are verious project hosting services open to all Free Software developers, which host projects under recognized Free Software or Open Source licenses. See for example [http://nongnu.org/ Savannah], [http://developer.berlios.de/ Berlios.de], [http://www.sf.net SourceForge], [http://gna.org/ Gna!], [http://tuxfamily.org/ TuxFamily].<br />
<br />
== Software for spreading your works ==<br />
<br />
*[http://blog.plumi.org/ Plumi] to roll your own video sharing site</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=FAQ&diff=4692
FAQ
2008-07-22T18:21:36Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 200.51.41.29 (Talk); changed back to last version by 90.184.0.91</p>
<hr />
<div>== Is there really a need for this? We already have so many licenses. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content and Expression Definition is not a license, it is a list of conditions under which a work must be available in order to be considered "free". In other words, it is a way to classify existing licenses. At the time the first draft of the definition was published (May 1, 2006), no such definition existed for free content (two definitions existed for free software).<br />
<br />
== So what do I need to put my work under this definition then? ==<br />
<br />
As the definition is not a license, but only classifies which licenses can be considered free, you have to pick one of these [[licenses]] and apply them to your work (usually by attaching a text such as "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license" with a link to the license text). If you want to express your support for free content, you can [[logos and buttons|help us design logos and buttons]].<br />
<br />
== What are the primary uses of this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are two primary goals:<br />
# To bring unity and clarity to the growing free content and free expression movements. We believe that a successful social movement must first define its goals and its vision and then communicate these to others. The definition helps with the first part while logos and other awareness materials can help with the second. Finally, while this website is not a community site in the traditional sense, it may help to bring together people from different free content projects, and could lead to new web sites and organizations specifically targeted at the free content movement.<br />
# To make communications with copyright holders more effective. Often, people state that their work is "free", "open content", or "open access", without qualifying this. The Creative Commons licenses are a good example of this: the Creative Commons logo simply states, generically, "Some Rights Reserved", and you have to click on he logo to find out which ones. It is very common for people to simply say that their work is [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22under+a+Creative+Commons+license%22 "under a Creative Commons license"]. This can mean many things, including, in the extreme cases, licenses which restrict the use of a work to certain world regions, or which forbid both commercial use and derivative works. This definition allows you to simply ask: "Is it ''free content''?". When the answer is "yes", you'll know precisely which rights you have.<br />
<br />
== Aren't you pretty arrogant for wanting to decide for everyone what's free? ==<br />
<br />
We are basing our work on the existing philosophies of free software and open source, on the existing policies of projects like [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]], and on a strong moral conviction that as many works as reasonably possible should be available to all human beings, as freely as possible. People are welcome to release their works as something other than Free Content or Free Expression. In the short term, most people will. Many will try to use "semi-free" licenses.<br />
<br />
Of course, we do not claim or seek a monopoly on the word "free". You are free (no pun intended) to use these terms as you wish, to argue for a different set of essential freedoms, or to attempt to redirect this definition by working with us. You are welcome to create your own term, defined differently, and use that.<br />
<br />
== Why don't you have any moderators who are professional (NAME PROFESSION)? ==<br />
<br />
It may be that the right person hasn't volunteered yet. More importantly though, it's important to realize that we can't have a professional novelist, and a musician, and a lawyer, and a DJ, and a painter, and a collage artist, and a dancer, etc. There aren't that many spaces for moderators. Of course, we welcome feedback from every individual or group and are especially careful to take into account viewpoints that we think are unrepresented or new.<br />
<br />
With that said, everyone involved in this project, and especially the moderators, produces, consumes, and distributes content or expression every day. While some of the freedoms listed here are freedoms designed primarily for the producers, we are also talking about the consumers of content and working hard to blur the lines between the two groups. We are all stakeholders in the process and we all -- creators, consumers, and most of us that are both -- have a voice that should be heard. The moderators have been picked not because they are particular representative of the world of creators as a group but because they respected, principled, in touch with much larger groups of creators, and willing to take into account others' opinions.<br />
<br />
== But how will people make money under this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are many ways that people make money distributing free content and expression. They tend to differ based on the type of work and many other factors. Of course, the point of this definition is not to list these (although someone could create a page in this wiki to do exactly that). The point is to describe essential freedom. Once we have challenged ourselves to produce and consume content and expression more ethically, it becomes our ''responsibility'' to find ways to do so that are economically sustainable. Unless we challenge ourselves, there is a much lower incentive to ever go out on a limb and try.<br />
<br />
We also want to point out that the exact same question can be asked about the current copyright system. Most authors do not make a substantial amount of money from their works (many do not even make money at all). Some authors do manage to make money, but at the price of totally giving up control of their works to producers or corporations (especially in the USA, where total transfer of all rights by contract is possible and moral rights do not exist practically). Many artists of high value remained poor during much of their life, because their talent was recognized too late. Thus the question of ''how authors can make money from their work'' is not tied to the mere licensing model of the work (free vs. not free), but to the economic system surrounding authorship and to the social and cultural conditions of recognition.<br />
<br />
== What about logos? Why do all open source / free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? ==<br />
<br />
Many organisations like Creative Commons, the Open Source Initiative, or Wikimedia like to protect their identity using trademarks and copyrights. It should be noted that relatively few people in these organisations are opposed to copyright ''per se''; in fact, the [[w:copyleft|copyleft]] principle makes use of copyright to protect the freedom of works. The argument of these organisations is not one against copyright, but one for additional freedoms. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, a case can be made that logos and symbols should be freely shared, and that trademarks should be avoided -- taking the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToFork "right to fork"] to an extreme. Under this model, the identity of the project is not protected by law, and anyone can try to assume the same identity by adopting it for a different project. The marketplace of ideas is the final arbiter of success. This is true for the free content logo we're trying to create, which will be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
== What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). This category is legally but also philosophically justified: creation of works - art works, free software works, free hardware design, machine design, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. Various other kinds of commons (like material commons) do not belong to this category.<br />
<br />
Since we are not proposing a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing) but a Definition (which must be based on firm conceptual ground ;-)), trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message would destroy the meaning of the message and transform it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful. <br />
<br />
We encourage other people to try and give a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. But we cannot do it in the framework of this Definition, because the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents.<br />
<br />
== Who wrote this? Who administers the site? ==<br />
<br />
== Why isn't a Non-Commercial restriction considered free?==<br />
Some ideas:<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/11/08/why-the-nc-permission-culture-simply-doesnt-work/ Why the NC permission culture simply doesn't work]<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/24/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft/ Non-commercial ShareAlike is not copyleft]<br />
* [http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2006/chapter_06/osjb2006-06-02-en-moeller.pdf ''Erik Möller'', The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a<br />
Creative Commons NC License]<br />
<br />
==Why isn't a NoDerivatives restriction considered free?==</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Portal:Software&diff=4686
Portal:Software
2008-07-22T10:49:43Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by Subhramanyu (Talk); changed back to last version by Kjoonlee</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Portals}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free Software directories and repositories ==<br />
<br />
* The [http://directory.fsf.org/ Free Software Directory] is a project of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Its aim is to "''catalog useful free software that runs under free operating systems — particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants''".<br />
<br />
* There are verious project hosting services open to all Free Software developers, which host projects under recognized Free Software or Open Source licenses. See for example [http://nongnu.org/ Savannah], [http://developer.berlios.de/ Berlios.de], [http://www.sf.net SourceForge], [http://gna.org/ Gna!], [http://tuxfamily.org/ TuxFamily].<br />
<br />
== Software for spreading your works ==<br />
<br />
*[http://blog.plumi.org/ Plumi] to roll your own video sharing site</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Besarivm&diff=4640
User talk:Besarivm
2008-07-09T01:39:35Z
<p>Angela Beesley: New page: Hi Besarivm. I think you might be on the wrong wiki. This site is only about the definition. It's not wikipedia:. ~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi Besarivm. I think you might be on the wrong wiki. This site is only about the [[definition]]. It's not [[wikipedia:]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 21:39, 8 July 2008 (EDT)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses/CC-BY-2.5&diff=4639
Licenses/CC-BY-2.5
2008-07-09T01:38:43Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 201.230.197.74 (Talk); changed back to last version by Angela Beesley</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:Licenses/CC-BY}}<br />
<br />
== Legal code ==<br />
<br />
This work is licensed under version 2.5 of the Creative Commons CC-BY license. The above human readable summary does not constitute an actual grant of license; please review http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode for the legal code of the license.</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=4638
Licenses
2008-07-09T01:34:56Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 201.230.197.74 (Talk); changed back to last version by 98.221.47.234</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparison of Licenses ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1" style="width: 100%; text-align: center; border-collapse: collapse;"<br />
! License<br />
! [[#Intended scope|Intended scope]]<br />
! [[#Copyleft|Copyleft]]<br />
! [[#Practical modifiability|Practical modifiability]]<br />
! [[#Attribution|Attribution]]<br />
! [[#Related rights|Related rights]]<br />
! [[#Access control prohibition|Access control prohibition]]<br />
! [[#Worldwide applicability|Worldwide applicability]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Against DRM|Against DRM]]<br />
| Works of art<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| Exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution|Creative Commons Attribution]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations <br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike|Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Design Science License|Design Science License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally science data<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License|Do What The F* You Want To Public License]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]<br />
| Works of art<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Exact translations (French law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU Lesser General Public License|GNU Lesser General Public License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally Software<br />
| {{partial|Weak}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU General Public License|GNU General Public License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally Software<br />
| {{yes|Strong}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Version 3 prohibits "Tivoisation" in certain cases}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Lizenz für Freie Inhalte|Lizenz für Freie Inhalte]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Unknown (license text is German)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| Software<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Criteria for choosing a license ==<br />
<br />
We explain hereafter some of the criteria which may influence your choice of a free content license. Those criteria are not inherently good or bad. The importance of each criteria depends on the context (for example the kind of work, or the kind of collaborative process you want to encourage), and on personal preferences.<br />
<br />
This list is not meant to be exhaustive. Other aspects may be important, like the clarity of the wording of a license, or the philosophy which is defended by its authors, or whether the license is surrounded by an active community of authors.<br />
<br />
Endly, we want to stress that, '''before choosing a license, you must read the license text carefully.''' No summary, no matter how attractive or reassuring, can replace detailed understanding of the license itself.<br />
<br />
=== Intended scope ===<br />
<br />
Some licenses strive to be as generic as is humanly (or rather, legally) possible. Others deliberately focus on a specific domain of creation, like software, or documentation. When a license has such a focus, it doesn't mean that it cannot be used for other kinds of works, but that its main area of use (and thus its social recognition as a trustable license) is clearly bounded.<br />
<br />
For example, the GNU GPL can be used for many kinds of works, but its main area of recognition is software.<br />
<br />
=== Copyleft ===<br />
<br />
When a work is "copylefted", it means all derived works (even if they mix in other works as well) must be distributed under the same terms (usually the same exact license) as the original work. Conversely, a non-copylefted work can be distributed under different terms, and even be rendered non-free.<br />
<br />
Therefore, using a copyleft license pretty much guarantees that users of subsequent works (for example modified copies) will be granted the same essential freedoms. On the other hand, a copyleft license can also limit opportunities for re-use, because most copyleft licenses are not compatible between each other. This is why people sometimes prefer non-copyleft license, depending on the work and the kind of practices they want to encourage.<br />
<br />
''ShareAlike'' is a synonym of ''copyleft'' in the Creative Commons vocabulary.<br />
<br />
Strong copyleft also forbids linking or integration the subject work into larger works/projects that are not also licensed with a license with compatible copyleft terms. Weak copyleft lacks such a 'viral copyleft' requirement.<br />
<br />
=== Practical modifiability ===<br />
<br />
Although all free licenses give you the ''legal'' right to modify, not all of them try to specify how modifiability of the work is ''practically'' enforced. [[Source Code|Requiring modifiability]] is important, especially for works which can be distributed under a completely opaque format such as software binary code (''"object code"'').<br />
<br />
The licenses which require practical modifiability usually define a notion of ''source code'', ''source data'' or similar. The GNU FDL defines ''transparent copies'' and disallows use of technological protection measures (TPM). The Creative Commons licenses disallow use of TPMs.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
Requiring attribution means that authorship for the work must be recognized in any circumstances. In the context of derived works (modified copies), this includes the initial as well as subsequent authors and contributors.<br />
<br />
It is often stated that all licenses can implicitly require attribution, as they mandate that the copyright notice must be kept intact when distributing copies. By including up-to-date authorship information in the copyright notice, one can indeed forbid subsequent works to erase that information. However, future contributions to the work are not guaranteed to be also credited using such a mechanism; indeed, it is based on the good will of authors (or maintainers) of subsequent works. Having an Attribution requirement prevents this from happening and mandates that all subsequent works have the same policy in mentioning authorship.<br />
<br />
Attribution is a double-edged sword, as it may become a heavy burden to list all contributors for projects which imply seamless and massive collaboration (like Wikipedia). For many works it is, however, a reasonable requirement.<br />
<br />
=== Related rights ===<br />
<br />
''Related rights'' concern not the mere copying and modification of the work, but its use in a derived manner: for example, performing the work, displaying it in public or private, broadcasting, webcasting, etc. Related rights exist for various areas of creation (songs, theater...); they often belong to people other than the authors of the work, such as perfomers, producers of phonograms, etc.<br />
<br />
Some free content licenses take care to also grant related rights to the recipient of the work. There may even be a [[#Copyleft|copyleft]] provision which states that related works (interpretations, performances, recordings) must be released under the same license as the work.<br />
<br />
=== Access control prohibition ===<br />
<br />
Some licenses contain a clause, which forbids to control access to the licensed content.<br />
In some licenses this clause concerns only the licensee (licensor can use access control systems to forbid not granted rights).<br />
<br />
=== Worldwide applicability ===<br />
<br />
When distributing a free work over the world, it is important to understand how people from other countries will be able to reuse this work.<br />
<br />
License writers have adopted three different strategies regarding the internationalization of their licenses:<br />
* ''same license for everyone'': only the original license text (often in English) is given legal value, and translations may be provided purely for information purposes;<br />
* ''exact translations'': translations of the original license text are provided, which all have legal value; those translations have exactly the same clauses and wording as the original text;<br />
* ''local adaptations'': the license is rewritten according to each national legal system.<br />
<br />
'''Attention: some licenses use a specific national law: so you cannot interpret the license through your national law, but through the law specified in the license.'''<br />
For example, Free Art License uses French law (you must pay attention to French law also if the license is written in English, German or other languages).<br />
<br />
The two first schemes ensure that everyone is given the same rights. In the third scheme (local adaptations), similarity and equivalence of the different versions should be carefully examined.<br />
<br />
According to advocates of the adaptation scheme, licenses must be rewritten in order to cope with the peculiarities of the various legal systems. This position is held by the Creative Commons organization.<br />
<br />
According to opponents of the adaptation scheme, having different national versions of a license presents the risk to break trust and interoperability. Also, they stress that the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works] provides a framework which, with careful drafting, allows to write internationally applicable license texts. This position is held by the Free Software Foundation and by the Free Art License authors.<br />
<br />
== List of licenses ==<br />
<br />
=== Against DRM ===<br />
<br />
* current version: 2.0<br />
* author: [http://www.freecreations.org Free Creations]<br />
* reference URL (English): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2.html <br />
* reference URL (Italian): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_it.html<br />
* reference URL (Spanish - Castilian): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_es1.html<br />
* reference URL (Spanish - Catalan): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_es2.html<br />
* reference URL (French): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_fr.html<br />
<br />
=== BSD-like non-copyleft licenses ===<br />
<br />
In parallel with the set of GNU licenses (including the [[#GNU GPL|GNU GPL]]), the [[Existing Movements#Free Software|free software]] world evolved a number of very simple non-copyleft licenses. These licenses are so simple that no dedicated text is needed to expose the terms of the license. To reuse such a license, you must take its text and replace the copyright notice with your own. Since these licenses are non-copyleft, changing the license text in such a way does not prevent reuse between works from happening.<br />
<br />
Regardless of their wording, these licenses always grant the user very broad rights, including the right to modify and distribute without supplying any source code. Also, their concise wording makes them simple to understand and unambiguous as to their effects.<br />
<br />
These licenses are often called "BSD-like" because the first occurence of such a license has been the license under which the Berkeley Software Distribution (one of the first free versions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix Unix]) was shipped to users.<br />
<br />
One should distinguish the original BSD license with its controversial ''[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html advertising clause]'' from the revised BSD license that does not have the advertising clause. <br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons Attribution ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: CC-BY<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: CC-BY-SA<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
<!-- <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"><br />
<Work rdf:about="urn:sha1:XCKBXFCIAIKUOW2D5JXEH3C5GFHUVHHL"><dc:date>2008</dc:date><dc:title>yung buttah</dc:title><dc:description></dc:description><dc:rights><Agent><dc:title>intro</dc:title></Agent></dc:rights><dc:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Sound" /><license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/" /></Work><br />
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/"><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/DerivativeWorks" /><prohibits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/CommercialUse" /><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/ShareAlike" /><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice" /></License><br />
</rdf:RDF> --><br />
<br />
=== Design Science License ===<br />
<br />
* ''Not maintained anymore''<ref></ref><br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== FreeBSD Documentation License ===<br />
<br />
* author: [http://www.freebsd.org/ FreeBSD Project]<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html]<br />
<br />
Although especially written for the FreeBSD project, this license shows you how to draft a very simple non-copyleft license for documentation works.<br />
<br />
=== Free Art License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: License Arte Libre, FAL, LAL<br />
* Current version: 1.3<br />
* author: [http://artlibre.org/ Copyleft Attitude]<br />
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ License text (English, version 1.2)]<br />
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/ License text (French)]<br />
<br />
=== GNU Free Documentation License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: GNU FDL, GFDL, FDL<br />
* Current version: 1.2<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
==== Invariant sections ====<br />
<br />
''Invariant sections'' are a special provision of the GFDL which, if used, prevent anyone from modifying the parts of the work which are defined as "invariant". The Free Software Foundation finds it useful to protect some special "non-functional" parts of the work, like a statement of intent (the motivation for invariant sections was, allegedly, to prevent the GNU Manifesto to be removed or modified in GNU documentations).<br />
<br />
We believe, however, that freedom should apply to all kind of works, and that what is "functional" in one situation can be "artistic" in another - and vice-versa. Consequently, a work using invariant sections to forbid some kinds of modifications to the work cannot be considered completely free.<br />
<br />
Unless additional permissions are granted, all FDL works contain unmodifiable sections which aren't called ''Invariant Sections'', such as a copy of the license embedded in the document itself.<br />
<br />
=== GNU General Public License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: GNU GPL, GPL<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
* Author: [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
The GNU GPL is, according to various statistics, probably the most used free software license. It was also the first license to implement the concept of [[#Copyleft|copyleft]], guaranteeing that "GPL'ed" free software cannot become, or take part in, non-free software.<br />
<br />
Although the GPL is primarily intended for software programs, it is worded so as to apply to many different kinds of works. The main condition for the GPL to be applicable to a type of work is that it admits the notion of a ''preferred form of a work for making modifications to it'' (be it source code in a computer language, music score notation, digital graphics under a format retaining structure, etc.). For example, there are many occurences of text or graphics released under the GPL.<br />
<br />
=== Lizenz für Freie Inhalte ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: LFFI<br />
* [http://www.neppstar.net/webstar/freieinhalte-webstar.html License Text (German)]<br />
<br />
AFAIK only used by the german portal neppstar for free music and video. Anyway, it seems to be a valid free license.<br />
<br />
=== MIT License ===<br />
<br />
* author: MIT<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/mit-license.php http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/mit-license.php]<br />
<br />
This license is arguably the simplest form of the BSD-like licenses for software. All the license, except for the no-warranty statement, is condensed in two short paragraphs.<br />
<br />
There are variants, like the [http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php current BSD license] which has an additional provision forbidding endorsement of derived works using the name of the original authors.<br />
<br />
=== Commentary on non-free licenses ===<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/NC|Essay about the Creative Commons non-commercial restriction]]</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Awareness&diff=4629
Awareness
2008-07-08T07:27:55Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by Diley (Talk); changed back to last version by Erik Möller</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Free Content Definition at Wikimania.jpg|thumb|The Eye of Sauron sees all: DFCW title slide at Wikimania 2006]]<br />
<br />
==August 2006==<br />
;Wikimania <br />
:The DFCW was presented at [http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org Wikimania 2006] by initiators [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] and [[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]].<br />
<br />
;Commonwealth of Learning <br />
:[http://www.col.org/colweb/site/pid/4042 Sir John Daniel], President and Chief Executive Officer of the Commonwealth of Learning, recommends using DFCW licenses for Open Educational Resources<br />
<br />
;Churchill Club of Australia <br />
:[http://www.churchillclub.org.au/23.asp?eventId=99 Future Directions for Free Content] by [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]]<br />
<br />
==March 2007==<br />
<br />
;Free Software Foundation<br />
:[http://www.fsf.org/associate/meetings/2007 Defining Free Culture] presented at Associate Member Meeting by [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]]<br />
<br />
;Wikimedia Foundation<br />
:Adopted as a definition of Free Content by the Wikimedia Foundation for its [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy licensing policy]<br />
<br />
== February 2008 ==<br />
<br />
; Creative Commons<br />
: The following licenses are identified as being compliant with the DFCW:<br />
: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA]<br />
: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC-BY]</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logos_and_buttons&diff=4626
Logos and buttons
2008-07-08T00:31:11Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 202.93.36.60 (Talk); changed back to last version by Angela Beesley</p>
<hr />
<div>== Official logo ==<br />
<br />
The official logo of the Definition of Free Cultural Works was designed by [http://mafalzon.blogspot.com/ Marc Falzon], and placed in the public domain:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--wikilogo.png]]<br />
<br />
An SVG copy can be found [[Media:Official-logo.svg|here]]<br />
<br />
The logo represents both the diversity of human culture, and the openness and freedom to interact with free cultural works.<br />
<br />
Please feel free to create derivatives of this logo, and [[Special:Upload|upload them]] to this wiki.<br />
<br />
== Buttons == <br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: #ffeeee; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid red; padding: .5em; text-align: center;">Please note that simply adding a button does not license your work in any way. You have to clearly state which license you use. One way of doing that is making the link point to the license, and having an explicit statement "''This work is licensed under the ... license''" below the work.</div><br />
<br />
=== AMYMADE's buttons ===<br />
<br />
The following set of buttons were designed by [http://www.amymade.com/ AMYMADE] with the support of the [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation] and represents our official recommendation:<br />
<br />
[[Image:CCBY_black.png]] [[Image:CCBYSA_black.png]] [[Image:GFDL_black.png]] [[Image:GPL_black.png]] [[Image:PUB_black.png]] [[Image:LGPL_black.png]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:CCBY_red.png]] [[Image:CCBYSA_red.png]] [[Image:GFDL_red.png]] [[Image:PUB_red.png]] [[Image:GPL_red.png]] [[Image:LGPL_red.png]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:CCBYSA_yellow.png]] [[Image:CCBY_yellow.png]] [[Image:GFDL_yellow.png]] [[Image:GPL_yellow.png]] [[Image:LGPL_yellow.png]] [[Image:PUB_yellow.png]]<br />
<br />
These buttons are in the public domain. Which color you use is your choice; we suggest red for music, black for science and software, and yellow for everything else.<br />
<br />
=== Small buttons ===<br />
<br />
This is the cleanest set so far and it comes with a [[:Image:Definition of Free Cultural Works button small.svg|template]].<br />
<br />
[[Image:Attribution button small.png]] [[Image:Sharealike button small.png]] [[Image:GFDL 1.2 button small.png]] [[Image:PD button small.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Inkwina's icons ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:GNU FDL.png]] [[Image:FreeBSD.png]] [[Image:GNU FDL alt.png]] [[Image:CC-BY-SA.png]]<br />
<br />
The svg versions [[:Image:CC-BY-SA.svg|CC-BY-SA.svg]] and [[:Image:GNU_FDL.svg|Image:GNU_FDL.svg]] do not display well online. They where created using Inkscape, and the SVG hasn't been cleaned up. But the [[:Image:Blank button.svg|Blank button.svg]] can be used to generate more buttons. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:01, 22 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
=== Other button styles ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:By-sa-button2.png]] [[Image:By-button.png]] [[Image:Pd-button.png]]<br />
<br />
Slightly different style:<br />
<br />
[[Image:By-sa-button.png]]<br />
<br />
Again a different style - contributed by Jörg Petri:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Pd2.gif]] [[Image:Pd_1.gif]]<br />
<br />
== License description pages ==<br />
<br />
For each license, we will try to create a description page. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/CC-BY-2.5]] - Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5<br />
* [[Licenses/CC-BY-SA-2.5]] - Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 2.5<br />
* [[Licenses/GNU GPL 2]] - GNU General Public License 2<br />
* [[Licenses/GNU FDL 1.2]] - GNU Free Documentation License 1.2<br />
* [[Public domain]]</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Portal:Index&diff=4625
Portal:Index
2008-07-08T00:30:29Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 220.246.135.99 (Talk); changed back to last version by Kjoonlee</p>
<hr />
<div>{{portals}}<br />
'''Portals''' are ways for groups of like-minded individuals to join and describe the principles of the [[definition]] in their own words, to collect resources, and to discuss. Be creative in editing -- they don't have to appeal to anyone but the group of people they are meant for. You are free to link to non-free resources which you think should be free, but be sure to emphasize the distinction.<br />
<br />
* [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]<br />
* [[Portal:News]]<br />
* [[Portal:Open media]] which allow Free Cultural Works to be spread!<br />
* [[Portal:Science]]<br />
* [[Portal:Music]]<br />
* [[Portal:Theatre]]<br />
* [[Portal:Software]]<br />
* [[Portal:Movies]]<br />
* [[Portal:Comics]]<br />
* [[Portal:Role-playing games]]<br />
* [[Portal:Art]]<br />
* [[Portal:Educational Materials]]<br />
* [[Portal:Novels]]<br />
* [[Portal:Poetry]]<br />
* [[Portal:Videogames content]]<br />
* [[Portal:Maths]]<br />
* [[Portal:Clubes Recreativos - Português]]<br />
* ''[{{SERVER}}/index.php?title=Portal:Index&action=edit Add yours!]''</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logos_and_buttons&diff=4611
Logos and buttons
2008-07-02T00:10:52Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 91.187.109.66 (Talk); changed back to last version by Angela Beesley</p>
<hr />
<div>== Official logo ==<br />
<br />
The official logo of the Definition of Free Cultural Works was designed by [http://mafalzon.blogspot.com/ Marc Falzon], and placed in the public domain:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--wikilogo.png]]<br />
<br />
An SVG copy can be found [[Media:Official-logo.svg|here]]<br />
<br />
The logo represents both the diversity of human culture, and the openness and freedom to interact with free cultural works.<br />
<br />
Please feel free to create derivatives of this logo, and [[Special:Upload|upload them]] to this wiki.<br />
<br />
== Buttons == <br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: #ffeeee; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid red; padding: .5em; text-align: center;">Please note that simply adding a button does not license your work in any way. You have to clearly state which license you use. One way of doing that is making the link point to the license, and having an explicit statement "''This work is licensed under the ... license''" below the work.</div><br />
<br />
=== AMYMADE's buttons ===<br />
<br />
The following set of buttons were designed by [http://www.amymade.com/ AMYMADE] with the support of the [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation] and represents our official recommendation:<br />
<br />
[[Image:CCBY_black.png]] [[Image:CCBYSA_black.png]] [[Image:GFDL_black.png]] [[Image:GPL_black.png]] [[Image:PUB_black.png]] [[Image:LGPL_black.png]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:CCBY_red.png]] [[Image:CCBYSA_red.png]] [[Image:GFDL_red.png]] [[Image:PUB_red.png]] [[Image:GPL_red.png]] [[Image:LGPL_red.png]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:CCBYSA_yellow.png]] [[Image:CCBY_yellow.png]] [[Image:GFDL_yellow.png]] [[Image:GPL_yellow.png]] [[Image:LGPL_yellow.png]] [[Image:PUB_yellow.png]]<br />
<br />
These buttons are in the public domain. Which color you use is your choice; we suggest red for music, black for science and software, and yellow for everything else.<br />
<br />
=== Small buttons ===<br />
<br />
This is the cleanest set so far and it comes with a [[:Image:Definition of Free Cultural Works button small.svg|template]].<br />
<br />
[[Image:Attribution button small.png]] [[Image:Sharealike button small.png]] [[Image:GFDL 1.2 button small.png]] [[Image:PD button small.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Inkwina's icons ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:GNU FDL.png]] [[Image:FreeBSD.png]] [[Image:GNU FDL alt.png]] [[Image:CC-BY-SA.png]]<br />
<br />
The svg versions [[:Image:CC-BY-SA.svg|CC-BY-SA.svg]] and [[:Image:GNU_FDL.svg|Image:GNU_FDL.svg]] do not display well online. They where created using Inkscape, and the SVG hasn't been cleaned up. But the [[:Image:Blank button.svg|Blank button.svg]] can be used to generate more buttons. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:01, 22 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
=== Other button styles ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:By-sa-button2.png]] [[Image:By-button.png]] [[Image:Pd-button.png]]<br />
<br />
Slightly different style:<br />
<br />
[[Image:By-sa-button.png]]<br />
<br />
Again a different style - contributed by Jörg Petri:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Pd2.gif]] [[Image:Pd_1.gif]]<br />
<br />
== License description pages ==<br />
<br />
For each license, we will try to create a description page. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/CC-BY-2.5]] - Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5<br />
* [[Licenses/CC-BY-SA-2.5]] - Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 2.5<br />
* [[Licenses/GNU GPL 2]] - GNU General Public License 2<br />
* [[Licenses/GNU FDL 1.2]] - GNU Free Documentation License 1.2<br />
* [[Public domain]]</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=FAQ&diff=4610
FAQ
2008-07-02T00:10:40Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 91.187.109.66 (Talk); changed back to last version by Angela Beesley</p>
<hr />
<div>== Is there really a need for this? We already have so many licenses. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content and Expression Definition is not a license, it is a list of conditions under which a work must be available in order to be considered "free". In other words, it is a way to classify existing licenses. At the time the first draft of the definition was published (May 1, 2006), no such definition existed for free content (two definitions existed for free software).<br />
<br />
== So what do I need to put my work under this definition then? ==<br />
<br />
As the definition is not a license, but only classifies which licenses can be considered free, you have to pick one of these [[licenses]] and apply them to your work (usually by attaching a text such as "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license" with a link to the license text). If you want to express your support for free content, you can [[logos and buttons|help us design logos and buttons]].<br />
<br />
== What are the primary uses of this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are two primary goals:<br />
# To bring unity and clarity to the growing free content and free expression movements. We believe that a successful social movement must first define its goals and its vision and then communicate these to others. The definition helps with the first part while logos and other awareness materials can help with the second. Finally, while this website is not a community site in the traditional sense, it may help to bring together people from different free content projects, and could lead to new web sites and organizations specifically targeted at the free content movement.<br />
# To make communications with copyright holders more effective. Often, people state that their work is "free", "open content", or "open access", without qualifying this. The Creative Commons licenses are a good example of this: the Creative Commons logo simply states, generically, "Some Rights Reserved", and you have to click on he logo to find out which ones. It is very common for people to simply say that their work is [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22under+a+Creative+Commons+license%22 "under a Creative Commons license"]. This can mean many things, including, in the extreme cases, licenses which restrict the use of a work to certain world regions, or which forbid both commercial use and derivative works. This definition allows you to simply ask: "Is it ''free content''?". When the answer is "yes", you'll know precisely which rights you have.<br />
<br />
== Aren't you pretty arrogant for wanting to decide for everyone what's free? ==<br />
<br />
We are basing our work on the existing philosophies of free software and open source, on the existing policies of projects like [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]], and on a strong moral conviction that as many works as reasonably possible should be available to all human beings, as freely as possible. People are welcome to release their works as something other than Free Content or Free Expression. In the short term, most people will. Many will try to use "semi-free" licenses.<br />
<br />
Of course, we do not claim or seek a monopoly on the word "free". You are free (no pun intended) to use these terms as you wish, to argue for a different set of essential freedoms, or to attempt to redirect this definition by working with us. You are welcome to create your own term, defined differently, and use that.<br />
<br />
== Why don't you have any moderators who are professional (NAME PROFESSION)? ==<br />
<br />
It may be that the right person hasn't volunteered yet. More importantly though, it's important to realize that we can't have a professional novelist, and a musician, and a lawyer, and a DJ, and a painter, and a collage artist, and a dancer, etc. There aren't that many spaces for moderators. Of course, we welcome feedback from every individual or group and are especially careful to take into account viewpoints that we think are unrepresented or new.<br />
<br />
With that said, everyone involved in this project, and especially the moderators, produces, consumes, and distributes content or expression every day. While some the freedoms listed here are freedoms designed primarily for the producers, we are also talking about the consumers of content and working hard to blur the lines between the two groups. We are all stakeholders in the process and we all -- creators, consumers, and most of us that are both -- have a voice that should be heard. The moderators have been picked not because they are particular representative of the world of creators as a group but because they respected, principled, in touch with much larger groups of creators, and willing to take into account others' opinions.<br />
<br />
== But how will people make money under this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are many ways that people make money distributing free content and expression. They tend to differ based on the type of work and many other factors. Of course, the point of this definition is not to list these (although someone could create a page in this wiki to do exactly that). The point is to describe essential freedom. Once we have challenged ourselves to produce and consume content and expression more ethically, it becomes our ''responsibility'' to find ways to do so that are economically sustainable. Unless we challenge ourselves, there is a much lower incentive to ever go out on a limb and try.<br />
<br />
We also want to point out that the exact same question can be asked about the current copyright system. Most authors do not make a substantial amount of money from their works (many do not even make money at all). Some authors do manage to make money, but at the price of totally giving up control of their works to producers or corporations (especially in the USA, where total transfer of all rights by contract is possible and moral rights do not exist practically). Many artists of high value remained poor during much of their life, because their talent was recognized too late. Thus the question of ''how authors can make money from their work'' is not tied to the mere licensing model of the work (free vs. not free), but to the economic system surrounding authorship and to the social and cultural conditions of recognition.<br />
<br />
== What about logos? Why do all open source / free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? ==<br />
<br />
Many organisations like Creative Commons, the Open Source Initiative, or Wikimedia like to protect their identity using trademarks and copyrights. It should be noted that relatively few people in these organisations are opposed to copyright ''per se''; in fact, the [[w:copyleft|copyleft]] principle makes use of copyright to protect the freedom of works. The argument of these organisations is not one against copyright, but one for additional freedoms. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, a case can be made that logos and symbols should be freely shared, and that trademarks should be avoided -- taking the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToFork "right to fork"] to an extreme. Under this model, the identity of the project is not protected by law, and anyone can try to assume the same identity by adopting it for a different project. The marketplace of ideas is the final arbiter of success. This is true for the free content logo we're trying to create, which will be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
== What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). This category is legally but also philosophically justified: creation of works - art works, free software works, free hardware design, machine design, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. Various other kinds of commons (like material commons) do not belong to this category.<br />
<br />
Since we are not proposing a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing) but a Definition (which must be based on firm conceptual ground ;-)), trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message would destroy the meaning of the message and transform it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful. <br />
<br />
We encourage other people to try and give a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. But we cannot do it in the framework of this Definition, because the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents.<br />
<br />
== Who wrote this? Who administers the site? ==<br />
<br />
== Why isn't a Non-Commercial restriction considered free?==<br />
Some ideas:<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/11/08/why-the-nc-permission-culture-simply-doesnt-work/ Why the NC permission culture simply doesn't work]<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/24/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft/ Non-commercial ShareAlike is not copyleft]<br />
* [http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2006/chapter_06/osjb2006-06-02-en-moeller.pdf ''Erik Möller'', The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a<br />
Creative Commons NC License]<br />
<br />
==Why isn't a NoDerivatives restriction considered free?==</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=FAQ&diff=4606
FAQ
2008-07-01T23:04:47Z
<p>Angela Beesley: rv further back</p>
<hr />
<div>== Is there really a need for this? We already have so many licenses. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content and Expression Definition is not a license, it is a list of conditions under which a work must be available in order to be considered "free". In other words, it is a way to classify existing licenses. At the time the first draft of the definition was published (May 1, 2006), no such definition existed for free content (two definitions existed for free software).<br />
<br />
== So what do I need to put my work under this definition then? ==<br />
<br />
As the definition is not a license, but only classifies which licenses can be considered free, you have to pick one of these [[licenses]] and apply them to your work (usually by attaching a text such as "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license" with a link to the license text). If you want to express your support for free content, you can [[logos and buttons|help us design logos and buttons]].<br />
<br />
== What are the primary uses of this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are two primary goals:<br />
# To bring unity and clarity to the growing free content and free expression movements. We believe that a successful social movement must first define its goals and its vision and then communicate these to others. The definition helps with the first part while logos and other awareness materials can help with the second. Finally, while this website is not a community site in the traditional sense, it may help to bring together people from different free content projects, and could lead to new web sites and organizations specifically targeted at the free content movement.<br />
# To make communications with copyright holders more effective. Often, people state that their work is "free", "open content", or "open access", without qualifying this. The Creative Commons licenses are a good example of this: the Creative Commons logo simply states, generically, "Some Rights Reserved", and you have to click on he logo to find out which ones. It is very common for people to simply say that their work is [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22under+a+Creative+Commons+license%22 "under a Creative Commons license"]. This can mean many things, including, in the extreme cases, licenses which restrict the use of a work to certain world regions, or which forbid both commercial use and derivative works. This definition allows you to simply ask: "Is it ''free content''?". When the answer is "yes", you'll know precisely which rights you have.<br />
<br />
== Aren't you pretty arrogant for wanting to decide for everyone what's free? ==<br />
<br />
We are basing our work on the existing philosophies of free software and open source, on the existing policies of projects like [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]], and on a strong moral conviction that as many works as reasonably possible should be available to all human beings, as freely as possible. People are welcome to release their works as something other than Free Content or Free Expression. In the short term, most people will. Many will try to use "semi-free" licenses.<br />
<br />
Of course, we do not claim or seek a monopoly on the word "free". You are free (no pun intended) to use these terms as you wish, to argue for a different set of essential freedoms, or to attempt to redirect this definition by working with us. You are welcome to create your own term, defined differently, and use that.<br />
<br />
== Why don't you have any moderators who are professional (NAME PROFESSION)? ==<br />
<br />
It may be that the right person hasn't volunteered yet. More importantly though, it's important to realize that we can't have a professional novelist, and a musician, and a lawyer, and a DJ, and a painter, and a collage artist, and a dancer, etc. There aren't that many spaces for moderators. Of course, we welcome feedback from every individual or group and are especially careful to take into account viewpoints that we think are unrepresented or new.<br />
<br />
With that said, everyone involved in this project, and especially the moderators, produces, consumes, and distributes content or expression every day. While some the freedoms listed here are freedoms designed primarily for the producers, we are also talking about the consumers of content and working hard to blur the lines between the two groups. We are all stakeholders in the process and we all -- creators, consumers, and most of us that are both -- have a voice that should be heard. The moderators have been picked not because they are particular representative of the world of creators as a group but because they respected, principled, in touch with much larger groups of creators, and willing to take into account others' opinions.<br />
<br />
== But how will people make money under this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are many ways that people make money distributing free content and expression. They tend to differ based on the type of work and many other factors. Of course, the point of this definition is not to list these (although someone could create a page in this wiki to do exactly that). The point is to describe essential freedom. Once we have challenged ourselves to produce and consume content and expression more ethically, it becomes our ''responsibility'' to find ways to do so that are economically sustainable. Unless we challenge ourselves, there is a much lower incentive to ever go out on a limb and try.<br />
<br />
We also want to point out that the exact same question can be asked about the current copyright system. Most authors do not make a substantial amount of money from their works (many do not even make money at all). Some authors do manage to make money, but at the price of totally giving up control of their works to producers or corporations (especially in the USA, where total transfer of all rights by contract is possible and moral rights do not exist practically). Many artists of high value remained poor during much of their life, because their talent was recognized too late. Thus the question of ''how authors can make money from their work'' is not tied to the mere licensing model of the work (free vs. not free), but to the economic system surrounding authorship and to the social and cultural conditions of recognition.<br />
<br />
== What about logos? Why do all open source / free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? ==<br />
<br />
Many organisations like Creative Commons, the Open Source Initiative, or Wikimedia like to protect their identity using trademarks and copyrights. It should be noted that relatively few people in these organisations are opposed to copyright ''per se''; in fact, the [[w:copyleft|copyleft]] principle makes use of copyright to protect the freedom of works. The argument of these organisations is not one against copyright, but one for additional freedoms. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, a case can be made that logos and symbols should be freely shared, and that trademarks should be avoided -- taking the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToFork "right to fork"] to an extreme. Under this model, the identity of the project is not protected by law, and anyone can try to assume the same identity by adopting it for a different project. The marketplace of ideas is the final arbiter of success. This is true for the free content logo we're trying to create, which will be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
== What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). This category is legally but also philosophically justified: creation of works - art works, free software works, free hardware design, machine design, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. Various other kinds of commons (like material commons) do not belong to this category.<br />
<br />
Since we are not proposing a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing) but a Definition (which must be based on firm conceptual ground ;-)), trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message would destroy the meaning of the message and transform it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful. <br />
<br />
We encourage other people to try and give a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. But we cannot do it in the framework of this Definition, because the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents.<br />
<br />
== Who wrote this? Who administers the site? ==<br />
<br />
== Why isn't a Non-Commercial restriction considered free?==<br />
Some ideas:<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/11/08/why-the-nc-permission-culture-simply-doesnt-work/ Why the NC permission culture simply doesn't work]<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/24/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft/ Non-commercial ShareAlike is not copyleft]<br />
* [http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2006/chapter_06/osjb2006-06-02-en-moeller.pdf ''Erik Möller'', The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a<br />
Creative Commons NC License]<br />
<br />
==Why isn't a NoDerivatives restriction considered free?==</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Finnrind&diff=4463
User talk:Finnrind
2008-05-22T13:00:55Z
<p>Angela Beesley: == Reviewed/ stable version Norwegian ==</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi Finnrind. Welcome to the Free Cultural Works wiki. Thanks for reverting that vandalism. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 00:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reviewed/ stable version Norwegian ==<br />
Sorry, but I don't know. Some translations on the [[Definition|home page]] say "Reviewed translations" but I've no idea who is supposed to review or approve them. I'd suggest asking on the [http://groups.google.com/group/freeculturalworks/ mailing list] or [[Special:Emailuser/Erik Möller|contacting Erik]] about this. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 09:00, 22 May 2008 (EDT)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Spiritia&diff=4461
User talk:Spiritia
2008-05-22T04:27:47Z
<p>Angela Beesley: New page: Hi Spiritia. Welcome to this wiki. Thanks for your work on the translation. ~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi Spiritia. Welcome to this wiki. Thanks for your work on the [[Definition/Bg|translation]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 00:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Finnrind&diff=4460
User talk:Finnrind
2008-05-22T04:26:01Z
<p>Angela Beesley: New page: Hi Finnrind. Welcome to the Free Cultural Works wiki. Thanks for reverting that vandalism. ~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi Finnrind. Welcome to the Free Cultural Works wiki. Thanks for reverting that vandalism. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 00:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:WonRyong&diff=4436
User talk:WonRyong
2008-05-18T00:40:14Z
<p>Angela Beesley: New page: Hello WonRyong. Welcome to the Free Cultural Works wiki. ~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Hello WonRyong. Welcome to the Free Cultural Works wiki. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 20:40, 17 May 2008 (EDT)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Jamierod&diff=4435
User talk:Jamierod
2008-05-18T00:39:15Z
<p>Angela Beesley: what?</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi Jamie. Please can you explain what all these uploads are for? Non-free logos advertising Windows Vista don't seem very relevant to this project. Are you sure you're on the right wiki? [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 20:39, 17 May 2008 (EDT)</div>
Angela Beesley
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Authoring_process&diff=4434
Authoring process
2008-05-18T00:37:12Z
<p>Angela Beesley: Reverted edits by 41.251.18.145 (Talk); changed back to last version by 195.93.21.9</p>
<hr />
<div>The process for maintaining and updating the [[Definition]] itself is simple:<br />
* Make your desired changes to [[Definition/Unstable]]. If you are uncertain, you can suggest changes on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]] first.<br />
* If the changes are minor (typos, errors, etc.), you can directly notify [[moderators|a moderator]], and he will update the stable version.<br />
* Otherwise, it is always a good idea to explain what you have done on the discussion page, and to wait for consensus to develop.<br />
* Only if a consensus is visible, the stable version will be updated.<br />
<br />
But what if a consensus cannot be found about a change? Then, more frequently than not, the change will not be made. The wiki experience shows that consensus can often be achieved in small groups. Should there, however, be a very clear split between two groups, either in its emotionality or in the number of people involved, it may be desirable to call for a vote. In that case, all contributors who have made meaningful edits to the definition (stable or unstable) will be eligible to vote. The voting method used will normally be [[w:approval voting|approval voting]], except in cases of simple yes/no votes.<br />
<br />
Extreme changes which are counter to the philosophy with which this definition was started can be vetoed by the [[moderators]] as a last resort.<br />
<br />
Other pages in this wiki are free for anyone to edit without special procedures; this may change over time for selected pages, but in general, we will try to keep this wiki as open as possible.</div>
Angela Beesley