Abuse filter log

'== Wikimedia version == Dear Wikimedia community,* '''[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|action=edit&section=new}} Start a new discussion topic]''' * fs[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments until June 20, 2006] * [{/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments until January 3, 2010] ---- __TOC__ == [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits == For what it's worth, I agree with [[User:Mormegil]] and his [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12071&oldid=12070 recent revert]. I don't understand what problem [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12044&oldid=12024 the edits in question] are trying to solve. Perhaps if they are explained them here, we can talk about it. —<b>[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#C40099">m</font><font color="#600099">a</font><font color="#2D0399">k</font><font color="#362365">o</font>]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#000000">๛</font>]]</b> 19:41, 26 September 2011 (EDT) == Suppressing copyleft == In re 171.226.171.169’s ''I am trying to delist GFDL, GPL, LGPL, CC-BY-SA and other copyleft licenses'': While I can understand (and, for a part, agree with) the opinion that copyleft licenses are not “free”, I have to point out that this would be an ''extreme'' change of the definition. Note that this definition originates at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation, which use copyleft licenses extensively (the whole body of Wikipedia text is licensed under CC-BY-SA, for start), and which use the Definition as the [[wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy|criterion of acceptability]]. Changing the Definition so as to exclude copyleft would mean the whole Wikipedia contents would be against its own rules. I just can’t imagine the definition could change so radically (without becoming a completely different definition). An alternate definition is possible, but would be exactly that – ''alternate'', not just a new version of this. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT) I'd think that CC-BY-SA and LGPL may be free, but GFDL and GPL are '''obviously''' non-free. Because you can include CC-BY-SA or LGPL works as part of works distributed under other licenses, but you cannot do the same thing with GPL and GFDL works. This is also why Wikipedia has moved from GFDL to GFDL + CC-BY-SA. Section 5 "Combining Documents" of the GFDL: :You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers. :The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work. :In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements". [[Special:Contributions/171.226.97.137|171.226.97.137]] 07:56, 31 October 2011 (EDT) : Maybe I don’t understand your specific point, but AFAICT you ''cannot'' generally combine a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA] work with a work under an other license, or, more specifically, when you combine a CC-BY-SA work with another work, the result must be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well. That is the same copyleft as in GFDL/GPL. On the other hand, LGPL allows you to combine an LGPL work (usually, a library) with another work (usually, an application), and distribute the result under any license. You cannot do that with CC-BY-SA, that is what the “share-alike” (-SA) tag is all about. On the other hand, [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC-BY] is a non-copyleft license which would allow that (but it is not the license Wikipedia uses). --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 11:52, 1 November 2011 (EDT) : True, GPL might allow less freedoms than for instance the MIT license. However that does not necesserily make GPL a non-free license. If you define a ''free license'' as the license with the most freedoms, then even the MIT/BSD/... licenses would have to be considered non-free, then only public domain could be considered truly free. However as there already is a definition for the public domain, the whole project of "Definition of Free Cultural Works" would not make sense then. Of course, the problem remains as of how broad you would want the Definition of Free Cultural Works to be. But from looking at the previous versions, the idea and intention of Definition of Free Cultural Works seems to have been to cover copyleft licenses as well, as they do not harm the main idea and purpose of Free Content. As [[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] said before, excluding copyleft licenses is a completely different definition. Maybe you are more looking for http://copyfree.org/standard/ instead? --[[User:T X|T X]] 14:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT) == Definition of "Can" missing == "Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can use, study, copy, change and improve..." -> Tribes in a lot of countries don't have computers - and therefore ''can't'' use the MIT/GPL/... licensed software I wrote. So my work is not a Free Cultural Work? (I guess such a conclusion is not intended) Maybe a definition for certain words, like "can", "may", ... should be added. Similiarly as keywords were specified for IETF's Internet Standards / RFCs (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). --[[User:T X|T X]] 13:37, 1 November 2011 (EDT) In a similar vein, "should" is used a lot where some might argue for "must" (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt ) ([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006433.html idea from]). - [[User:KTucker|K]] 17:48, 12 December 2011 (EST) == Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' == Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can * Use * Study * Copy * Change and Improve I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four freedoms: * 'Study' is a form of 'Use': It's just a more specific form of usage - which, agreed, a lot of EULAs and laws try to exclude. * 'Distribution' should be added: If you were only looking at these four freedoms, even some content which you get via an NDA might fit these points. You can use, study and even copy the work for your own needs, you may change and improve it - however you won't be allowed to share any of these things afterwards. Therefore my suggestion, making more a whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality: * Use and Study * Copy and Distribute * Change and Improve So that the second verb of each freedom is actually a more specific form of the first verb of each freedom. The purpose of the second verb is to better reflect the true, good intent of the more neutral, more generic action defined in the first verb of a freedom, and to place some emphasize on this good intent, the idea behind it. (I'm not quite sure whether I'd prefer the word 'distribute' or 'share'. Maybe a native English speaker could give some insight on what (s)he thinks the differing connotations might be.) --[[User:T X|T X]] 04:25, 4 November 2011 (EDT) :: The libre knowledge definition puts it this way: <center> {| class="wikitable" width="50%" | Users of libre knowledge are free to :(0) use the work for any purpose :(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs :(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part :(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result. |} </center> ::i.e. "study" is about being able to adapt/modify - use (0) and adapt (1) to ''help yourself'', "copy" (2) is about sharing to ''help your neighbour'', and the last freedom (3) is to clarify that you can also share your modified versions (to ''help the community''). ::Personally, I prefer to retain the link with the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] as does the [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge libre knowledge definition]. Knowledge and cultural resources cannot be regarded as free if they cannot be accessed and modified with libre software. Consistency is important. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:12, 12 December 2011 (EST) ==Libre== Please make it clear that this would also be the "[[Libre|libre cultural works]]" definition. :: The libre knowledge definition is completely compatible as far as I can tell. It appears in some form on the following pages: [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_Knowledge Libre knowledge on Wikipedia] and [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say libre]. i.e. at some key point state that free means "libre"/"free as in freedom" - perhaps as simply as writing free/libre at least once near the beginning. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:37, 3 March 2012 (EST) :: I have created a parallel "libre" version - [[Libre|Libre Cultural Works Definition]] - but would prefer this not to be necessary. Discuss this issue right here or on the libre version's [[Talk:Libre|discussion page]] - Thanks - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:39, 5 March 2012 (EST) ::I find the gratis meaning of "free" to be very confusing to newcomers and am in favor of reworking the text to use "libre" or another unambigious adjective. [[User:Cov|Cov]] 19:18, 2 May 2013 (EDT) == Free-Libre-Open Hardware Definition == Hello, I'm starting a "friendly fork" of the OSHW Definition here because, currently engaged in writing a free/libre/open hardware project proposal to a set of potential clients who are not at all familiar with the whole genre of free/libre/open approaches, I feel the current OSHW Definition is not concise enough to just reproduce as an excerpt. I also feel the current OSHW Definition risks the same division between "open source" methods and "free" ethics that has complicated relations for years within the free/libre/open source software community. Back in 2004 while preparing a presentation deck for my Director General in government, I needed to cram the OSI definition into a single screen: http://www.goslingcommunity.org/gtec2004.shtml In the end I felt the short version I had adapted was more useful as a definition than the original, in the same sense that dictionaries also hold to very concise phrases. Over the years too, I came to see the importance of including both the methods and ethics elements into projects. So what appears here as a "fork" to facilitate discussion is the current draft text that appears in my own free/libre/open hardware document. ''DRAFT: '' http://freedomdefined.org/User:Jpotvin/Free-Libre-Open_Hardware_Definition I hope nobody is offended by this thorough change. Putting it up as a fork here just seemed to best way to discuss it without interfering with your main definition text. Regards, Joseph Potvin == Updating and creating a stable version. == Hello, my name is Michelle Kosik, I'm new to this so please excuse my inexperience. I was hopping we can make the font bigger or bolder. How do I change the version to the stable vershion? : You don’t just change the stable version. See [[Authoring process]] for more information. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 05:18, 26 March 2013 (EDT) == Permalink == [[Definition]] should contain a link to [[Definition/1.1]] to make it easier for people to refer to that version specifically. (People who write books, for example, might not intend to link to [[Definition]] which is a moving target, but to [[Definition/1.1]] which their book refers to.) : I added the link into the grey introduction box. Do you think it is OK? --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 11:58, 17 February 2015 (EST) == Expire of licenses if break == Some licenses, that are declared as free, expire, if you break them. I can't see that this restriction is allowed. -- [[User:David23x|David23x]] ([[User talk:David23x|talk]]) 10:55, 1 October 2015 (EDT) == Source requirement on stable vs. optional source offer on unstable == I have noticed, thanks to '''some''' people on a IRC channel on chat.freenode.net, that the stable version requires source files to be redistributed and be on a format/standard/codec that is friendly to free/libre software, while the unstable version puts redistribution of source files as an option. I, personally, see that, under the stable definition, almost no work would qualify as free/libre cultural work, not even those under free/libre licenses. I'm not a free/libre culture activist (I'm only a free/libre software activist that thinks that non-functional data (like images, sound, and such) should be at least shareable), but I just want to know why the changes related to this difference weren't made to the stable version? What's the reasoning for holding it? I know there's no consensus, but can you describe the points where the opinions differ? I am posting this to multiple lists, as I believe it is relevant to each of them (more on that below). For years, we have been using the term "free content" to refer to our projects. However, what exactly is free content? Does it include the right to make commercial use? Does it allow derivative works? A year ago, Anthere, one of our elected trustees, noted that the English Wikipedia article <nowiki>[[free content]]</nowiki> is confused and contains no clear definition. This is no surprise, as the term has evolved purely through its usage. One year on, the article doesn't look much better. It is clear that we need a definition. With the help of feedback from the likes of Richard Stallman and Lawrence Lessig, and an increasing number of collaborators, I have drafted up a first version of such a definition, called the "Free Content and Expression Definition": ::http://freecontentdefinition.org/Definition You can also use the URLs <http://freedomdefinition.org/> or <http://freedomdefined.org/>. Please use the URL ::http://freecontentdefinition.org/static/ (with trailing slash) when submitting this link to high traffic sites. Licenses covered by this definition must grant the following freedoms: * the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it * the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression * the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies The essence of these freedoms is not negotiable. However, in order to best express, interpret and elaborate on these freedoms, I would like to announce an open editing phase to push this Definition to a 1.0 version. There is a stable, protected version of the definition and an unstable, openly editable one. The openly editable one, which may already differ significantly from the one above by the time you read this, can be found at: ::http://freecontentdefinition.org/Definition/Unstable You can suggest changes on the talk page, or be bold and make them directly. The change process will be consensus-based. In order to decide when a consensus has been reached on a change, I have appointed three moderators besides myself: * Benjamin Mako Hill. Mako is a co-initiator of the definition and a prolific figure in the free software community. To quote Wikipedia, he "is a Debian hacker and author of the Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 Bible (...). He currently works in the electronic publishing group of the MIT Media Lab, and is on the boards of Software in the Public Interest, Software Freedom International (the organization that organizes Software Freedom Day) and the Ubuntu Foundation." * Angela Beesley. You may be familiar with her. ;-) She's the other of the two elected trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, and also the Vice President of Community Relations at Wikia, Inc. * Mia Garlick. General Counsel at Creative Commons, and an expert on IP law. Creative Commons is, of course, the project which offers many easy-to-use licenses to authors and artists, some of which are free content licenses and some of which are not. None of them is acting here in an official capacity related to their affiliations. Please treat their comments as personal opinion unless otherwise noted. See <http://freecontentdefinition.org/Authoring_process> for details on the authoring process and <http://freecontentdefinition.org/Moderators> for more about moderation. In addition to changes to the definition itself, we invite you to submit logos that can be attached to works or licenses which are free under this definition: ::http://freecontentdefinition.org/Logo_contest Why is this relevant to the projects I am alerting about it? ;Wikipedia: Has the most significant problems distinguishing between free and non-free materials simply because of the sheer amount of uploads and user-submitted content. The English Wikipedia, for instance, allows limited "fair use" in addition to free content uploads, but prohibits licenses which forbid commercial use. This definition allows us to state clearly: "An uploaded work must either be free content, or fair use. If it is fair use, strong restrictions apply, and your upload may be deleted or replaced at any time." :The definition also contains remarks about interoperability with other licenses. This is a problem that concerns us at the moment when it comes to importing texts under licenses which are philosophically similar, but legally incompatible with the GFDL. If the definition gets widely adopted, we can push for changes to licenses to make them more compatible with each other. ;Wikimedia Commons: Commons was launched as a free content repository. We have effectively followed the terms of the definition in the licenses we allow and prohibit for uploaded files; however, the discussions about whether to allow, for example, pictures which cannot be used commercially keep coming up. Clearly labeling the repository as a free content archive under this definition will help to avoid that. ;Wikinews: I've seen some uploaded photo galleries that were under licenses which forbid derivative works. If we limit Wikimedia projects to free content, that would explicitly not be allowed. This is an example of "non-free content creep" that may be observed on other projects as well. ;Wiktionary: The definition contains recommendations about license complexity. Wiktionary as a resource for terminological and lexicological data does not benefit from the highly complex terms of the GFDL, which require, for example, reprinting the entire license text when copying a single page. ;Wikimedia: The definition makes it easy to resolve the question of which licenses to allow or disallow across projects. For example, a Wikimedia-wide policy could be that: "All content in all projects must be free content as per the Free Content Definition 1.0, with the exception of works which are used under exemptions granted by national copyright laws, such as 'fair use' in the United States. These exemptions are defined on a per-project and per-language basis." Outside Wikimedia, the definition will make it easier for us to communicate. For instance, many people use the very vague terms "open access" or "open content", or simply talk about "a Creative Commons license" when describing licensing of their work. The term "free content" has an existing usage in the sense described herein. With the additional support of this definition, it is a powerful and simple way to determine whether a work is usable in the context of the Wikimedia projects. One note on the choice of name. Not all people will be happy to label their works "content", as it is also a term that is heavily used in commerce. This is why Mako and I have compromised on the name "Free Content and Expression Definition" for the definition itself. We are suggesting "Free Expression" as an alternative term that may lend itself particularly to usage in the context of artistic works. However, we remain open on discussing the issue of naming, and invite your feedback in this regard. All that being said, I hope that you will join the open editing phase or the logo contest. Even if there will be very little feedback, I hope we will be able to release a 1.0 version of this definition fairly soon. You will find a general announcement that you can copy and paste to other places at: :http://freecontentdefinitio Thanks for your time, Erik'