https://freedomdefined.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=85.4.40.222&feedformat=atomDefinition of Free Cultural Works - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T14:10:28ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.38.4https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=13287Talk:Definition/Unstable2012-03-05T23:37:41Z<p>85.4.40.222: /* Libre */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|action=edit&section=new}} Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments until January 3, 2010]<br />
<br />
----<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
== Need definition for "Unstable" as you know or understand it ==<br />
<br />
Thoughts, anyone? Anyone at all that isn't a machine?<br />
<br />
== [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits ==<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
== Suppressing copyleft ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
Section 5 "Combining Documents" of the GFDL:<br />
: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.<br />
<br />
: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.<br />
<br />
: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".<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/171.226.97.137|171.226.97.137]] 07:56, 31 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: 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)<br />
<br />
: 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)<br />
<br />
== Definition of "Can" missing ==<br />
<br />
"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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
== Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' ==<br />
<br />
Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can<br />
* Use<br />
* Study<br />
* Copy<br />
* Change and Improve <br />
<br />
I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four freedoms:<br />
<br />
* '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.<br />
* '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.<br />
<br />
<br />
Therefore my suggestion, making more a whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality:<br />
<br />
* Use and Study<br />
* Copy and Distribute<br />
* Change and Improve<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
(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)<br />
<br />
:: The libre knowledge definition puts it this way:<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable" width="50%" <br />
|<br />
Users of libre knowledge are free to<br />
<br />
:(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
:(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
:(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
:(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
::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'').<br />
<br />
::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)<br />
<br />
==Libre==<br />
<br />
Please make it clear that this would also be the "[[Libre|libre cultural works]]" definition. <br />
:: 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)<br />
:: 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 - [[Special:Contributions/85.4.40.222|85.4.40.222]] 18:37, 5 March 2012 (EST)</div>85.4.40.222https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Libre&diff=13282Libre2012-03-05T11:33:46Z<p>85.4.40.222: /* Identifying Libre Cultural Works */ "Free Cultural Works" logos is better as that was the wording when they were developed.</p>
<hr />
<div>=Libre Cultural Works Definition=<br />
<br />
DERIVED FROM: [[Definition|Free Cultural Works Definition]]<br />
<br />
{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
{{divbox|1=gray|2=Stable version|3=This is the stable version '''1.1''' of the '''Libre Cultural Works''' definition which is synonymous and equivalent in all respects to the [[Definition|Free Cultural Works]] definition. The only significant difference is use of the word "libre" instead of "free" to distinguish the latter from the other meaning of "free" in English: ''gratis'' or free of charge. This version will be synchronised and 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 />
<div style="text-align:right;">[[Definition/1.0|version '''1.0''']]</div><br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Libre Cultural Works" (also known as [[Definition|Free Cultural Works]]) as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''libre works'', and ''[[licenses|libre licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a libre work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "libre".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''libre''' (free as in freedom), and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
If authors do not take action, their works are covered by existing copyright laws, which severely limit what others can and cannot do. Authors can make their works libre by choosing among a number of legal documents known as licenses. For an author, choosing to put their work under a ''libre license'' does not mean that they lose all their rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be libre provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Libre Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Libre Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Libre Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Libre Cultural Work" or "Free Cultural Work", you can use a generic term such as "Libre Resource" or "Free Content", or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Libre Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Libre Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
== Defining Libre Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Libre Culture Licenses do not take any 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 />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "libre" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<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 />
* '''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 />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free (''gratis''), 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 />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Libre Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered libre, a work ''must'' be covered by a Libre Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-libre in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered libre:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a libre format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-libre formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a libre format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered libre.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously libre constitute a libre work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "libre".<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about libre cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes of the [[Definition|Definition of Free Cultural Works]]. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__</div>85.4.40.222