https://freedomdefined.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=107.77.199.22&feedformat=atomDefinition of Free Cultural Works - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T15:45:26ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.38.4https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Source_Code&diff=23125Source Code2019-06-17T14:40:24Z<p>107.77.199.22: /* Examples */ tt</p>
<hr />
<div>==Definition==<br />
Source code is a delicate question to tackle in the broad context of free contents. For example, the GNU GPL defines it as ''"the preferred form of the work for making modifications to [the work]"''. Indeed, source code is of primary importance for many kinds of works (especially software).<br />
<br />
But there are also situations where the idea of source code appears irrelevant or even meaningless. Consider a digital recording of a modern rock concert. How do we define "source code" ? No symbolic or textual transcription of the concert will be able to describe exactly (so as to reproduce accurately) the manner in which the guitarist picked the strings of his instruments, the slight variations in pitch or tempo of the singer, etc.<br />
<br />
Even if no "source code" can be made available for such a work, it would be counter-productive to qualify it as "non-free" if it satisfies to the other freedoms of free content.<br />
<br />
Thus, let's define a criterion for knowing when source code is mandatory:<br />
* '''When the work or part of it is generated by computation from a modifiable structured form (e.g. textual), this modifiable structured form is called ''source code''. It must be made available to recipients of the work.'''<br />
<br />
==Discussion of terms==<br />
* ''structured'': which gives access to the structure of the work (for example, an OpenDocument file gives access to the structure of the document, whereas a PDF file doesn't)<br />
* ''modifiable'': whose format allows easy modification (including modification of structure)<br />
* ''computation'': which does not involve any creative act from a human being<br />
<br />
==Transitivity==<br />
Of course, the source code must satisfy the freedoms of free content as well.<br />
Therefore, by recursion, our definition is not weaker than the one in the GNU GPL<br />
<br />
==Examples==<br />
* software source code<br />
* editable text (raw text, XML, word processor files...)<br />
* vector graphics filest<br />
* tablaturess my ass yhyoeppuil bitch iuicqk you ig, lyricsb<br />
* multitfwcitvh kisk you racks from an audio recordingyak pyar no ye dioung <br />
* multywrieioitracks from any video recordingo<br />
Ntywupp p. Other stupid asd bituvhrwwuoj helel uqufuck roquigrgjiujupwohartw eruryruruiq<br />
Ogquqpip 1767w</div>107.77.199.22https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses/CC-0&diff=23124Licenses/CC-02019-06-17T14:27:46Z<p>107.77.199.22: /* No Restrictions */</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Creative Commons Zero License''' is the most permissive '''[http://www.creativecommons.org/ Creative Commons]''' license because it effectively releases a work into the [[public domain]].<br />
<br />
A work released in this way grants all the four freedoms listed in the [[definition]] of free cultural works:<br />
<br />
{{:four freedoms}}<br />
<br />
{| style="background-color: #EEFFFF; width: 100%;"<br />
! width="64" | [[Image:Fd sq icon pd.svg]]<br />
| <br />
===No Restrictions===<br />
[[Definition#Defining_Free_Cultural_Works|Additional conditions]] are not guaranteed to be in place.<br />
|}<br />
Qqtperpte what utoq hi tpfptrctf</div>107.77.199.22