Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!

Abuse filter log

Abuse Filter navigation (Home | Recent filter changes | Examine past edits | Abuse log)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Details for log entry 98,079

01:02, 19 June 2016: 5.158.237.123 (talk) triggered filter 0, performing the action "edit" on Talk:Permissible restrictions. Actions taken: Disallow; Filter description: (examine)

Changes made in edit



: That is a good observation. I wouldn’t take it as a big problem, though: the Definition is constructed so that it first defines “Essential Freedoms”, and specifies that “a license must grant [them] ''without limitation''” (emphasis mine), after which it creates the exception to this rule with “Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms.” Maybe just copying the relevant part of [[Definition]], or explaining a bit at the top of this page to make it more clear? --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 11:56, 31 August 2012 (EDT)
: That is a good observation. I wouldn’t take it as a big problem, though: the Definition is constructed so that it first defines “Essential Freedoms”, and specifies that “a license must grant [them] ''without limitation''” (emphasis mine), after which it creates the exception to this rule with “Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms.” Maybe just copying the relevant part of [[Definition]], or explaining a bit at the top of this page to make it more clear? --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 11:56, 31 August 2012 (EDT)
== Purchase miserly ED pills no instruction ==
cialis 20mg side effects in total there are
http://cialiswithoutdoctors-prescription.net - cialis without a doctor's prescription  cialis
<a href="http://cialiswithoutdoctors-prescription.net">cialis without a doctor's prescription</a> - cialis 20mg replies
buy cialis plus cialis for

Action parameters

VariableValue
Name of the user account (user_name)
'5.158.237.123'
Age of the user account (user_age)
0
Page ID (page_id)
1528
Page namespace (page_namespace)
1
Page title (without namespace) (page_title)
'Permissible restrictions'
Full page title (page_prefixedtitle)
'Talk:Permissible restrictions'
Action (action)
'edit'
Edit summary/reason (summary)
'Purchase miserly ED pills no instruction'
Whether or not the edit is marked as minor (no longer in use) (minor_edit)
false
Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext)
'== Small bug == There is a bug here. One of the sentences says ''"The license may include clauses that strive to further ensure that the work is a free work, notably by enforcing some of the conditions specified in the paragraphs below"'', but the meaning of "the paragraphs below" has been lost when this part of this definition was given its own page. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:37, 18 February 2007 (CET) == question == A question on "Permissible restrictions": if a photo would have a restriction that the ''location'' where it was taken has to be mentioned, would that constitute an unpermissible restriction? Example: "Mention ''Taken at London zoo'' on publication". [[User:TeunSpaans|TeunSpaans]] 15:34, 27 March 2007 (CEST) == Our Definition? == Why are '''WE''' so possessive of this definition, if its supposed to be about freedom? Its better to say '''this''' or '''the''' definintion. Also, is this page part of the definition? It's odd that such a crucial part is on a separate page, and the part on Versioning, which is not strictly speaking part of the definition, is on the definition's page! --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 13:18, 19 June 2007 (CEST) :Where do you read this? [[User:TeunSpaans|TeunSpaans]] 07:04, 7 July 2007 (CEST) ::First line ''There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede the essential freedom in our definition.'' ::This would be better phrased as: ''There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that do not impede the essential freedoms prescribed by this definition, and, hence, are compatible with it.'' --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 13:57, 9 July 2007 (CEST) == Trademark == Something else which is a reasonable restriction is that if the work is trademarked then anyone who modifies or redistributes it has to remove the trademarked stuff unless they have permission from your company. But trademark law is separate from copyright law, so I think it doesn't have to be part of the copyright license == Inaccuracy of "restrictions" == All restrictions come from ©. Regarding NC and ND and such, we're talking about licenses that do not grant adequate permissions. Regarding SA/copyleft, we're saying that not granting permission to release under non-free terms is OK. None of these public license provisions are restrictions. I suggest patching the definition and this article for accuracy. I may attempt to do so in my userspace and will add a note here if I do. [[User:Mike Linksvayer|Mike Linksvayer]] ([[User talk:Mike Linksvayer|talk]]) 12:54, 30 August 2012 (EDT) : That is a good observation. I wouldn’t take it as a big problem, though: the Definition is constructed so that it first defines “Essential Freedoms”, and specifies that “a license must grant [them] ''without limitation''” (emphasis mine), after which it creates the exception to this rule with “Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms.” Maybe just copying the relevant part of [[Definition]], or explaining a bit at the top of this page to make it more clear? --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 11:56, 31 August 2012 (EDT)'
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext)
'== Small bug == There is a bug here. One of the sentences says ''"The license may include clauses that strive to further ensure that the work is a free work, notably by enforcing some of the conditions specified in the paragraphs below"'', but the meaning of "the paragraphs below" has been lost when this part of this definition was given its own page. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:37, 18 February 2007 (CET) == question == A question on "Permissible restrictions": if a photo would have a restriction that the ''location'' where it was taken has to be mentioned, would that constitute an unpermissible restriction? Example: "Mention ''Taken at London zoo'' on publication". [[User:TeunSpaans|TeunSpaans]] 15:34, 27 March 2007 (CEST) == Our Definition? == Why are '''WE''' so possessive of this definition, if its supposed to be about freedom? Its better to say '''this''' or '''the''' definintion. Also, is this page part of the definition? It's odd that such a crucial part is on a separate page, and the part on Versioning, which is not strictly speaking part of the definition, is on the definition's page! --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 13:18, 19 June 2007 (CEST) :Where do you read this? [[User:TeunSpaans|TeunSpaans]] 07:04, 7 July 2007 (CEST) ::First line ''There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede the essential freedom in our definition.'' ::This would be better phrased as: ''There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that do not impede the essential freedoms prescribed by this definition, and, hence, are compatible with it.'' --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 13:57, 9 July 2007 (CEST) == Trademark == Something else which is a reasonable restriction is that if the work is trademarked then anyone who modifies or redistributes it has to remove the trademarked stuff unless they have permission from your company. But trademark law is separate from copyright law, so I think it doesn't have to be part of the copyright license == Inaccuracy of "restrictions" == All restrictions come from ©. Regarding NC and ND and such, we're talking about licenses that do not grant adequate permissions. Regarding SA/copyleft, we're saying that not granting permission to release under non-free terms is OK. None of these public license provisions are restrictions. I suggest patching the definition and this article for accuracy. I may attempt to do so in my userspace and will add a note here if I do. [[User:Mike Linksvayer|Mike Linksvayer]] ([[User talk:Mike Linksvayer|talk]]) 12:54, 30 August 2012 (EDT) : That is a good observation. I wouldn’t take it as a big problem, though: the Definition is constructed so that it first defines “Essential Freedoms”, and specifies that “a license must grant [them] ''without limitation''” (emphasis mine), after which it creates the exception to this rule with “Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms.” Maybe just copying the relevant part of [[Definition]], or explaining a bit at the top of this page to make it more clear? --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 11:56, 31 August 2012 (EDT) == Purchase miserly ED pills no instruction == cialis 20mg side effects in total there are http://cialiswithoutdoctors-prescription.net - cialis without a doctor's prescription cialis <a href="http://cialiswithoutdoctors-prescription.net">cialis without a doctor's prescription</a> - cialis 20mg replies buy cialis plus cialis for'
Unified diff of changes made by edit (edit_diff)
'@@ -30,3 +30,10 @@ All restrictions come from ©. Regarding NC and ND and such, we're talking about licenses that do not grant adequate permissions. Regarding SA/copyleft, we're saying that not granting permission to release under non-free terms is OK. None of these public license provisions are restrictions. I suggest patching the definition and this article for accuracy. I may attempt to do so in my userspace and will add a note here if I do. [[User:Mike Linksvayer|Mike Linksvayer]] ([[User talk:Mike Linksvayer|talk]]) 12:54, 30 August 2012 (EDT) : That is a good observation. I wouldn’t take it as a big problem, though: the Definition is constructed so that it first defines “Essential Freedoms”, and specifies that “a license must grant [them] ''without limitation''” (emphasis mine), after which it creates the exception to this rule with “Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms.” Maybe just copying the relevant part of [[Definition]], or explaining a bit at the top of this page to make it more clear? --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 11:56, 31 August 2012 (EDT) + +== Purchase miserly ED pills no instruction == + +cialis 20mg side effects in total there are + http://cialiswithoutdoctors-prescription.net - cialis without a doctor's prescription cialis + <a href="http://cialiswithoutdoctors-prescription.net">cialis without a doctor's prescription</a> - cialis 20mg replies + buy cialis plus cialis for '
Old page size (old_size)
3230
Lines added in edit (added_lines)
[ 0 => false, 1 => '== Purchase miserly ED pills no instruction ==', 2 => false, 3 => 'cialis 20mg side effects in total there are', 4 => ' http://cialiswithoutdoctors-prescription.net - cialis without a doctor's prescription cialis', 5 => ' <a href="http://cialiswithoutdoctors-prescription.net">cialis without a doctor's prescription</a> - cialis 20mg replies', 6 => ' buy cialis plus cialis for' ]
Unix timestamp of change (timestamp)
1466294577