https://freedomdefined.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Antoine&feedformat=atomDefinition of Free Cultural Works - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T12:55:15ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.38.4https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=3145Talk:Definition2007-04-06T18:21:53Z<p>Antoine: /* Moral rights */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Typos ==<br />
<br />
Under "Permissible Restrictions": "... for the protection of protection of ...". This typo should not exist in a stable version. --[[User:Mrnorwood|Mrnorwood]] 18:48, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
: Thanks,fixed.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:21, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== 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)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=3049Talk:Definition/Unstable2007-03-21T12:21:20Z<p>Antoine: /* Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. <br />
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: <br />
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]]. <br />
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:<br />
Users are free to<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 similarly.<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:<br />
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; <br />
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share <br />
enhancements or derived works.<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:<br />
<br />
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.<br />
<br />
Users are free to:<br />
<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim] <br />
<br />
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]<br />
<br />
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.<br />
<br />
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).<br />
<br />
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<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 />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Final name ==<br />
<br />
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Hu?<br />
: First, welcome back...<br />
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?<br />
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)<br />
<br />
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?<br />
<br />
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".<br />
<br />
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.<br />
<br />
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: It was important to us (Mako and myself, the co-initiators of the definition) to label the definition in a way which is agreeable to the important institutions of the Free Culture movement -- FSF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and so on. The discussion on the wiki was absolutely crucial to the entire process. All the names that have been listed here have been mentioned and repeatedly considered. Mako and I have spoken personally to Lessig, RMS, Moglen, and others about this. Now that, after many hours of talking, we have finally found something everyone seems to be able to agree to (more or less enthusiastically), you will have to understand that I am reluctant to second-guess the decision. Certainly, it is always nicer to have a larger scale community process to give a decision legitimacy, but I also believe that process is not an end in itself, and hope we can move foward together. I certainly appreciate (and am well aware of) all the work you have done on this wiki.<br />
<br />
:: Regarding your specific critique: the strength of "Free Cultural Works", in my opinion, is that it references the notion of "Free Culture" without explicitly being called a "Free Culture Definition". It also reduces the "work (labor)" vs. "work (intellectual)" ambiguity in the singular. For example, if I refer to a CD as a "Free Work", the response "So you've worked for free?" is almost inevitable. I do not agree that "Free Cultural" excludes software or scientific articles; in my opinion, both are very much and very clearly cultural works, and should be explicitly referenced.<br />
<br />
:: That the title of the definition itself is not quite catchy may not be such a bad thing -- we will not attempt to prescribe that you have to call free cultural works by that exact phrase. Instead, what I would like to do is to explicitly reference other phrases which have similar meanings, such as "free content" and "open knowledge".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: I understand you want to put Lessig, RMS and others on our side, but I think we shouldn't care. We have to do this work because FSF and CC refused to take position in the first place, so we are the ones setting a standard.<br />
<br />
::: Anyway, I'm ready to further contribute. But, sincerely, it will be difficult unless things stop being done in private. Regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:06, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: It would be fine if there had been offline discussion, provided that details were posted to the wiki here so that we could also see it, at the time or after the fact. Indeed, you have a wiki, so one might ask why the discussion was not carried out through the wiki, which would seem designed for the task?<br />
<br />
::: Also, like Antoine, I have a great deal of respect for Richard Stallman and for Lawrence Lessig, who through their writings have between them opened my eyes to freedom. Nevertheless, we should not fear to build on that, and hope to equal or exceed what has passed before. <br />
<br />
::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:48, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" border="1" width="80%"><br />
<tr><td><br />
"Definition of Free Cultural Works" suggests [http://creativecommons.org/ "Creative Commons"] and the associated [http://www.free-culture.cc/ "Free Culture" book]. While these are both brilliant, they suggest a range of licenses most of which are non-free. We need to focus on the free/<em>libre</em> licenses which conform to the definition we are developing. <br />
<br />
Prefer something like "Definition of Libre Works" or "Definition of Free/Libre Resources", etc. - or simply "Libre Definition" - Kim Tucker 30 October 2006.</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
:::: I concur with your comments, and I'm not terribly happy either with the term "Cultural" nor with the term "Works", for various reasons. Libre Definition or Libre Content Definition would be much more acceptable, and I often use the term "Software libre" in preference to "Free software" for similar reasons. So far Libre is not really an English word in itself, but perhaps we should adopt it and make it so anyway, since "Free" in current English has too many connotations of both "Libre" and "Gratis" which are avoided by use of a more precise term.<br />
<br />
:::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 00:55, 31 October 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: ''Libre'' doesn't work for me -- too strange and foreign, too easily to confuse with "Libri" (books). IMHO focusing the "Free Culture" movement on a clearer notion of freedom is a worthy goal in its own right.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:32, 2 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: That's a reasonable point, and is the same reason that "Free software" is the normal expression in English, rather than "Software libre" although that can of course be used as well - and much of our language derives from expressions which were originally "strange and foreign" but became familiar and commonplace because people started using them anyway.<br />
<br />
::::: For our purposes it's unfortunate, due to the confusion in English between "libre" and "gratis" according to context, where "libre" captures our intended meaning. So far the best expression I've seen is "Free Content Definition" as in the present unstable definition, as dropping the "and Expression" was a distinct improvement, and we can explain that we mean ''Free content'' in the sense of liberty not price. --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:09, 5 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::::: Libre disambiguates, while "free" is foreign and confusing to most people on the planet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre#Libre Wikipedia on Libre] indicates that the word "Libre" is used in various [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages Romance languages] while "gratis is common in Germanic and Romance languages. So, at least speakers of those languages would identify with these terms, and no-one would be confused about what is meant. <br />
In various circles, the term FLOSS is being used more and more - probably encouraged by high profile research projects such as [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSWorld] and [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSPols] among others and in articles in [http://www.firstmonday.org First Monday] where the acronym FLOSS is used more than FOSS (the L is significant).<br />
I think it is time (and would be useful) to make "libre" an accepted English word - like so many others from the Romance languages :-). [[User:ktucker|Kim]] 20070118<br />
<br />
== look forward to seeing updates, anyway ==<br />
<br />
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.<br />
<br />
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else ''generalised'', applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's ''Cultural'', and whether or not it's a ''Work'' however that is defined.<br />
<br />
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:<br />
<br />
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.<br />
<br />
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ philosophy] page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.<br />
<br />
:regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I also find the use of the term "god-like" unsavoury. This term might be offensive to parctitioners of certain faiths, particulary if or when the definition is translated to certain languages. I belive that such a definition would be most useful if it written in an as unequivocal a language as possible, while at the same time avoiding a legalistic style. Not that this is an easy task, but avoiding emotionally charged language would help.<br />
<br />
btw, it is the laws, not the countries that create the situation, this is not clear in the current.<br />
"thier content" is metaphoric and emotional, and I'm not clear why its re-use, not plain use.<br />
<br />
I would rewrite this sentence as follows: <br />
<cite> They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. </cite> to<br />
'''Such laws provide authors with extraordianry rights, effectivly granting them an exlusive monopoly as to how the content they create can be used.'''<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:33, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Added "freedom to use" to the preamble ==<br />
<br />
As it was the preamble was not consistent with subsequent sections; please amend and re-edit as may be necessary.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:42, 26 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== (re)distribute v. communicate ==<br />
<br />
When we talk about information distribution esseantially equals communication. After all, the network, and the community, consists of people, and the information that is shared by the community isn't "distributed" it is "communicated".<br />
<br />
I thus argue that<br />
<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 />
should be changed to something along the lines of <br />
<br />
# the freedom to communicate the information or expression to anyone, without restriction<br />
# the freedom to communicate mutated versions of the information or expression<br />
<br />
== Definition and / or manifesto? ==<br />
<br />
The current preamble asserts that (all) cultural works should be free. Is this really to be part of the definition? My guess is that many people are interested in a definition, without necessarily being in support of this claim. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 17:48, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Saying that works of authorship should be free seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement to me. The definition does not advocate abolishing copyright law to ''achieve'' that goal, nor does it set any kind of timetable -- in fact, it doesn't even assert that this goal is achievable for all works of authorship. It merely expresses a clear moral preference of free over non-free works. This moral preference is, indeed, something which I think we should communicate, as the definition is not meant to be merely a sterile legal text, but part of a social movement which agrees with this very basic notion -- but may favor different methods to achieve it, or even disagree upon its ultimate feasibility.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:49, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: It is not my intention to question that the preference of free works should be stated on the site. Still, it is hardly part the definition of a free work. Therefore, I would suggest another page for the moral and philosophy, separated from the definition. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 15:29, 1 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this definition refers, and implicitly applies exclusively to, Digital renditions. I do not know if this is intentional, but it is defiantly not a bad thing. I believe that for a work to be really free it needs to be replicatable (i.e. it should be possible to make a perfect copy, not that it is possible to come up with it again from scratch). This is only practically possible (easy) with text (hence the power of writing) and today with digital media. If there is agreement with this vein of thought I think that it should be made more explicit in the definition. <br />
<br />
This would nicely lead to the statement that the freedoms required by the definition cannot be technically impaired or limited (e.g. through the use of propriety digital formats) <br />
e.g. an audio clip can be released under CC-BY-SA as an .ogg and as a .wma, but only the .ogg version should be considered free under this definition.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 12:35, 9 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:Actually, the definition tries to take physical (non-digital) works into account. A license like the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] was explicitly drafted with physical works in mind as well. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:38, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: <cite> ...make it possible for a growing part of humanity to access, create, modify, publish and distribute cultural works that can be represented in digital form ...</cite> This sentence gives the opposite impression. It's really a matter of clarity.<br />
::Also can this definition apply to an original oil painting on canvas? how can "The freedom to redistribute copies" be reconciled with "No technical restrictions" when the only way to make a copy of an oil painting is to employ a copy artist with great technical skill to make a copy; what is somtimes called a "fake". -[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 03:49, 21 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, the quote above is part of the preamble, it explains the technical context that makes free content more and more relevant. But the definition itself is not specific to digital works.<br />
:::As for making copies of a painting, I don't see having skills as a "technical restriction". For making a copy of a digital image, you also need technical skills (copying a file on a computer is a skill, even if a basic one). In the spirit of this definition, a restriction is a burden that is deliberately added by the author/producer/distributor, not a requirement inherent to the kind of work. If I want to modify a piece of software and recompile it, I'd better know how to code: is it a "technical restriction" too?<br />
:::By the way, while you need some very good skills to make a near-perfect copy, you can also make a very approximate copy which would still qualify as a breach of "intellectual property" if the original painting was not under a free license.<br />
:::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:21, 21 March 2007 (CET)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=3033Talk:Definition/Unstable2007-03-13T17:38:49Z<p>Antoine: /* Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. <br />
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: <br />
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]]. <br />
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:<br />
Users are free to<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 similarly.<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:<br />
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; <br />
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share <br />
enhancements or derived works.<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:<br />
<br />
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.<br />
<br />
Users are free to:<br />
<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim] <br />
<br />
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]<br />
<br />
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.<br />
<br />
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).<br />
<br />
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<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 />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Final name ==<br />
<br />
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Hu?<br />
: First, welcome back...<br />
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?<br />
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)<br />
<br />
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?<br />
<br />
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".<br />
<br />
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.<br />
<br />
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: It was important to us (Mako and myself, the co-initiators of the definition) to label the definition in a way which is agreeable to the important institutions of the Free Culture movement -- FSF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and so on. The discussion on the wiki was absolutely crucial to the entire process. All the names that have been listed here have been mentioned and repeatedly considered. Mako and I have spoken personally to Lessig, RMS, Moglen, and others about this. Now that, after many hours of talking, we have finally found something everyone seems to be able to agree to (more or less enthusiastically), you will have to understand that I am reluctant to second-guess the decision. Certainly, it is always nicer to have a larger scale community process to give a decision legitimacy, but I also believe that process is not an end in itself, and hope we can move foward together. I certainly appreciate (and am well aware of) all the work you have done on this wiki.<br />
<br />
:: Regarding your specific critique: the strength of "Free Cultural Works", in my opinion, is that it references the notion of "Free Culture" without explicitly being called a "Free Culture Definition". It also reduces the "work (labor)" vs. "work (intellectual)" ambiguity in the singular. For example, if I refer to a CD as a "Free Work", the response "So you've worked for free?" is almost inevitable. I do not agree that "Free Cultural" excludes software or scientific articles; in my opinion, both are very much and very clearly cultural works, and should be explicitly referenced.<br />
<br />
:: That the title of the definition itself is not quite catchy may not be such a bad thing -- we will not attempt to prescribe that you have to call free cultural works by that exact phrase. Instead, what I would like to do is to explicitly reference other phrases which have similar meanings, such as "free content" and "open knowledge".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: I understand you want to put Lessig, RMS and others on our side, but I think we shouldn't care. We have to do this work because FSF and CC refused to take position in the first place, so we are the ones setting a standard.<br />
<br />
::: Anyway, I'm ready to further contribute. But, sincerely, it will be difficult unless things stop being done in private. Regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:06, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: It would be fine if there had been offline discussion, provided that details were posted to the wiki here so that we could also see it, at the time or after the fact. Indeed, you have a wiki, so one might ask why the discussion was not carried out through the wiki, which would seem designed for the task?<br />
<br />
::: Also, like Antoine, I have a great deal of respect for Richard Stallman and for Lawrence Lessig, who through their writings have between them opened my eyes to freedom. Nevertheless, we should not fear to build on that, and hope to equal or exceed what has passed before. <br />
<br />
::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:48, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" border="1" width="80%"><br />
<tr><td><br />
"Definition of Free Cultural Works" suggests [http://creativecommons.org/ "Creative Commons"] and the associated [http://www.free-culture.cc/ "Free Culture" book]. While these are both brilliant, they suggest a range of licenses most of which are non-free. We need to focus on the free/<em>libre</em> licenses which conform to the definition we are developing. <br />
<br />
Prefer something like "Definition of Libre Works" or "Definition of Free/Libre Resources", etc. - or simply "Libre Definition" - Kim Tucker 30 October 2006.</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
:::: I concur with your comments, and I'm not terribly happy either with the term "Cultural" nor with the term "Works", for various reasons. Libre Definition or Libre Content Definition would be much more acceptable, and I often use the term "Software libre" in preference to "Free software" for similar reasons. So far Libre is not really an English word in itself, but perhaps we should adopt it and make it so anyway, since "Free" in current English has too many connotations of both "Libre" and "Gratis" which are avoided by use of a more precise term.<br />
<br />
:::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 00:55, 31 October 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: ''Libre'' doesn't work for me -- too strange and foreign, too easily to confuse with "Libri" (books). IMHO focusing the "Free Culture" movement on a clearer notion of freedom is a worthy goal in its own right.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:32, 2 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: That's a reasonable point, and is the same reason that "Free software" is the normal expression in English, rather than "Software libre" although that can of course be used as well - and much of our language derives from expressions which were originally "strange and foreign" but became familiar and commonplace because people started using them anyway.<br />
<br />
::::: For our purposes it's unfortunate, due to the confusion in English between "libre" and "gratis" according to context, where "libre" captures our intended meaning. So far the best expression I've seen is "Free Content Definition" as in the present unstable definition, as dropping the "and Expression" was a distinct improvement, and we can explain that we mean ''Free content'' in the sense of liberty not price. --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:09, 5 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::::: Libre disambiguates, while "free" is foreign and confusing to most people on the planet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre#Libre Wikipedia on Libre] indicates that the word "Libre" is used in various [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages Romance languages] while "gratis is common in Germanic and Romance languages. So, at least speakers of those languages would identify with these terms, and no-one would be confused about what is meant. <br />
In various circles, the term FLOSS is being used more and more - probably encouraged by high profile research projects such as [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSWorld] and [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSPols] among others and in articles in [http://www.firstmonday.org First Monday] where the acronym FLOSS is used more than FOSS (the L is significant).<br />
I think it is time (and would be useful) to make "libre" an accepted English word - like so many others from the Romance languages :-). [[User:ktucker|Kim]] 20070118<br />
<br />
== look forward to seeing updates, anyway ==<br />
<br />
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.<br />
<br />
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else ''generalised'', applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's ''Cultural'', and whether or not it's a ''Work'' however that is defined.<br />
<br />
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:<br />
<br />
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.<br />
<br />
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ philosophy] page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.<br />
<br />
:regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I also find the use of the term "god-like" unsavoury. This term might be offensive to parctitioners of certain faiths, particulary if or when the definition is translated to certain languages. I belive that such a definition would be most useful if it written in an as unequivocal a language as possible, while at the same time avoiding a legalistic style. Not that this is an easy task, but avoiding emotionally charged language would help.<br />
<br />
btw, it is the laws, not the countries that create the situation, this is not clear in the current.<br />
"thier content" is metaphoric and emotional, and I'm not clear why its re-use, not plain use.<br />
<br />
I would rewrite this sentence as follows: <br />
<cite> They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. </cite> to<br />
'''Such laws provide authors with extraordianry rights, effectivly granting them an exlusive monopoly as to how the content they create can be used.'''<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:33, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Added "freedom to use" to the preamble ==<br />
<br />
As it was the preamble was not consistent with subsequent sections; please amend and re-edit as may be necessary.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:42, 26 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== (re)distribute v. communicate ==<br />
<br />
When we talk about information distribution esseantially equals communication. After all, the network, and the community, consists of people, and the information that is shared by the community isn't "distributed" it is "communicated".<br />
<br />
I thus argue that<br />
<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 />
should be changed to something along the lines of <br />
<br />
# the freedom to communicate the information or expression to anyone, without restriction<br />
# the freedom to communicate mutated versions of the information or expression<br />
<br />
== Definition and / or manifesto? ==<br />
<br />
The current preamble asserts that (all) cultural works should be free. Is this really to be part of the definition? My guess is that many people are interested in a definition, without necessarily being in support of this claim. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 17:48, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Saying that works of authorship should be free seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement to me. The definition does not advocate abolishing copyright law to ''achieve'' that goal, nor does it set any kind of timetable -- in fact, it doesn't even assert that this goal is achievable for all works of authorship. It merely expresses a clear moral preference of free over non-free works. This moral preference is, indeed, something which I think we should communicate, as the definition is not meant to be merely a sterile legal text, but part of a social movement which agrees with this very basic notion -- but may favor different methods to achieve it, or even disagree upon its ultimate feasibility.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:49, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: It is not my intention to question that the preference of free works should be stated on the site. Still, it is hardly part the definition of a free work. Therefore, I would suggest another page for the moral and philosophy, separated from the definition. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 15:29, 1 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this definition refers, and implicitly applies exclusively to, Digital renditions. I do not know if this is intentional, but it is defiantly not a bad thing. I believe that for a work to be really free it needs to be replicatable (i.e. it should be possible to make a perfect copy, not that it is possible to come up with it again from scratch). This is only practically possible (easy) with text (hence the power of writing) and today with digital media. If there is agreement with this vein of thought I think that it should be made more explicit in the definition. <br />
<br />
This would nicely lead to the statement that the freedoms required by the definition cannot be technically impaired or limited (e.g. through the use of propriety digital formats) <br />
e.g. an audio clip can be released under CC-BY-SA as an .ogg and as a .wma, but only the .ogg version should be considered free under this definition.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 12:35, 9 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:Actually, the definition tries to take physical (non-digital) works into account. A license like the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] was explicitly drafted with physical works in mind as well. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:38, 13 March 2007 (CET)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Permissible_restrictions&diff=2651Talk:Permissible restrictions2007-02-18T14:37:17Z<p>Antoine: New page: == 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 ...</p>
<hr />
<div>== Small bug ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:37, 18 February 2007 (CET)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=2650Talk:Definition2007-02-18T14:31:54Z<p>Antoine: /* Discussion list */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Typos ==<br />
<br />
Under "Permissible Restrictions": "... for the protection of protection of ...". This typo should not exist in a stable version. --[[User:Mrnorwood|Mrnorwood]] 18:48, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
: Thanks,fixed.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:21, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== 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)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=2609Talk:Definition2007-02-16T11:44:22Z<p>Antoine: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Typos ==<br />
<br />
Under "Permissible Restrictions": "... for the protection of protection of ...". This typo should not exist in a stable version. --[[User:Mrnorwood|Mrnorwood]] 18:48, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
: Thanks,fixed.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:21, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== 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)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=2608Licenses2007-02-16T11:41:48Z<p>Antoine: remove "current draft" (obsolete)</p>
<hr />
<div>=The grid=<br />
<br />
{|border="1" style="text-align:center"<br />
! License<br />
! [[#Intended scope|Intended scope]]<br />
! [[#Copyleft|Copyleft]]<br />
! [[#Practical modifiability|Practical modifiability]]<br />
! [[#Attribution|Attribution]]<br />
! [[#Related rights|Related rights]]<br />
! [[#Anti-DRM|Anti-DRM]]<br />
! [[#Worldwide applicability|Worldwide applicability]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Against DRM|Against DRM]]<br />
| artworks<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| granted (+copyleft)<br />
| yes<br />
| exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons BY|CC BY]]<br />
| non-software<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| yes<br />
| granted<br />
| yes<br />
| national adaptations <br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons BY-SA|CC BY-SA]]<br />
| non-software<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| yes<br />
| granted<br />
| yes<br />
| national adaptations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Design Science License|Design Science]]<br />
| generic; optimally science data<br />
| yes<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]<br />
| non-software<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| yes<br />
| granted<br />
| no<br />
| exact translations (french law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Doc. License]]<br />
| text documents<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU FDL|GNU FDL]]<br />
| text documents<br />
| yes<br />
| yes<br />
| yes<br />
| -<br />
| yes<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU L-GPL|GNU L-GPL]]<br />
| software<br />
| yes; weak<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| -<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU GPL|GNU GPL]]<br />
| software<br />
| yes; strong<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| -<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| software<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<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. 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 a however a reasonable requirement.<br />
<br />
:I wonder what the long term problems are going to be a thousand years from now should the world and our culture remain intact. Will these requirements seem reasonable for any popular works?<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 />
=== Anti-DRM ===<br />
<br />
Some licenses contain an anti-DRM clause.<br />
In some licenses this clause concerns only the licensee (licensor can use DRM 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 />
= License list =<br />
<br />
== Against DRM ==<br />
<br />
* current version: 2.0<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 />
=== 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 />
=== MIT License ===<br />
<br />
* author: MIT<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html]<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 />
== Creative Commons licenses ==<br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons BY ===<br />
<br />
* complete name: Creative Commons Attribution<br />
* current version: 2.5<br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons BY-SA ===<br />
<br />
* complete name: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike<br />
* current version: 2.5<br />
<br />
== Design Science License ==<br />
<br />
* ''not maintained anymore''<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html]<br />
<br />
== Free Art License ==<br />
<br />
* current version: 1.2<br />
* author: [http://artlibre.org/ Copyleft Attitude]<br />
* reference URL (English): [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/]<br />
* reference URL (French): [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/ http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/]<br />
<br />
== GNU FDL ==<br />
<br />
* complete name: GNU Free Documentation License<br />
* current version: 1.2<br />
* author: [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html]<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 />
== GNU GPL ==<br />
<br />
* complete name: GNU General Public License<br />
* current version: 2.0<br />
* author: [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html]<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 />
= Commentary on non-free licenses =<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/NC|Essay about the Creative Commons non-commercial restriction]]</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=2607Licenses2007-02-16T11:38:03Z<p>Antoine: /* BSD-like non-copyleft licenses */ remove "Libre Commons License"</p>
<hr />
<div>=The grid=<br />
<br />
{|border="1" style="text-align:center"<br />
! License<br />
! [[#Intended scope|Intended scope]]<br />
! [[#Copyleft|Copyleft]]<br />
! [[#Practical modifiability|Practical modifiability]]<br />
! [[#Attribution|Attribution]]<br />
! [[#Related rights|Related rights]]<br />
! [[#Anti-DRM|Anti-DRM]]<br />
! [[#Worldwide applicability|Worldwide applicability]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Against DRM|Against DRM]]<br />
| artworks<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| granted (+copyleft)<br />
| yes<br />
| exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons BY|CC BY]]<br />
| non-software<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| yes<br />
| granted<br />
| yes<br />
| national adaptations <br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons BY-SA|CC BY-SA]]<br />
| non-software<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| yes<br />
| granted<br />
| yes<br />
| national adaptations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Design Science License|Design Science]]<br />
| generic; optimally science data<br />
| yes<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]<br />
| non-software<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| yes<br />
| granted<br />
| no<br />
| exact translations (french law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Doc. License]]<br />
| text documents<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU FDL|GNU FDL]]<br />
| text documents<br />
| yes<br />
| yes<br />
| yes<br />
| -<br />
| yes<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU L-GPL|GNU L-GPL]]<br />
| software<br />
| yes; weak<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| -<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU GPL|GNU GPL]]<br />
| software<br />
| yes; strong<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| -<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| software<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<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. 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 a however a reasonable requirement.<br />
<br />
:I wonder what the long term problems are going to be a thousand years from now should the world and our culture remain intact. Will these requirements seem reasonable for any popular works?<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 />
=== Anti-DRM ===<br />
<br />
Some licenses contain an anti-DRM clause.<br />
In some licenses this clause concerns only the licensee (licensor can use DRM 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 />
= License list =<br />
<br />
== Against DRM ==<br />
<br />
* current version: 2.0<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 />
=== 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 />
=== MIT License ===<br />
<br />
* author: MIT<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html]<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 />
== Creative Commons licenses ==<br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons BY ===<br />
<br />
* complete name: Creative Commons Attribution<br />
* current version: 2.5<br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons BY-SA ===<br />
<br />
* complete name: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike<br />
* current version: 2.5<br />
<br />
== Design Science License ==<br />
<br />
* ''not maintained anymore''<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html]<br />
<br />
== Free Art License ==<br />
<br />
* current version: 1.2<br />
* author: [http://artlibre.org/ Copyleft Attitude]<br />
* reference URL (English): [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/]<br />
* reference URL (French): [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/ http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/]<br />
<br />
== GNU FDL ==<br />
<br />
* complete name: GNU Free Documentation License<br />
* current version: 1.2<br />
* author: [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html]<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 />
== GNU GPL ==<br />
<br />
* complete name: GNU General Public License<br />
* current version: 2.0<br />
* author: [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html]<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 />
=Current draft=<br />
<br />
''(to be removed when the page overhaul is finished)''<br />
<br />
Tentatively, the following licenses are known to meet the criteria set out by the [[definition]]:<br />
* [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution License] (not free for Debian) - allows a third party to create a derived work (e.g. translation or text to voice) and release that under a non-free license.<br />
* [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License] (not free for Debian)<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License] when no invariant sections are specified (this is important)<br />
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] (not free for Debian)<br />
* [http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2.html Against DRM 2.0] <br />
* All [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html GNU-GPL compatible free software licenses]. While many of them are specific to software, some are worded so as to apply to all kinds of digital works. For example, the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU GPL] is often applied to non-software works (such as computer graphics, game scenarios...).<br />
<br />
In addition, works in the [[w:public domain|public domain]] are also free content as per the definition.<br />
<br />
To be verified:<br />
* [http://www.wikiweise.de/wiki/Wikiweise%3AFreie%20Wiki-Lizenz Freie Wiki-Lizenz]<br />
<br />
Controversial:<br />
* [http://iang.info/en IANG license] - seeks to enforce lots of things that are outside of the copyright realm (like financial transparency, right of developers to have a voice in the development process, etc.)<br />
<br />
= Commentary on non-free licenses =<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/NC|Essay about the Creative Commons non-commercial restriction]]</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=2606Licenses2007-02-16T11:37:17Z<p>Antoine: /* The grid */ remove "libre commons license"</p>
<hr />
<div>=The grid=<br />
<br />
{|border="1" style="text-align:center"<br />
! License<br />
! [[#Intended scope|Intended scope]]<br />
! [[#Copyleft|Copyleft]]<br />
! [[#Practical modifiability|Practical modifiability]]<br />
! [[#Attribution|Attribution]]<br />
! [[#Related rights|Related rights]]<br />
! [[#Anti-DRM|Anti-DRM]]<br />
! [[#Worldwide applicability|Worldwide applicability]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Against DRM|Against DRM]]<br />
| artworks<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| granted (+copyleft)<br />
| yes<br />
| exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons BY|CC BY]]<br />
| non-software<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| yes<br />
| granted<br />
| yes<br />
| national adaptations <br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons BY-SA|CC BY-SA]]<br />
| non-software<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| yes<br />
| granted<br />
| yes<br />
| national adaptations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Design Science License|Design Science]]<br />
| generic; optimally science data<br />
| yes<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]<br />
| non-software<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| yes<br />
| granted<br />
| no<br />
| exact translations (french law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Doc. License]]<br />
| text documents<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU FDL|GNU FDL]]<br />
| text documents<br />
| yes<br />
| yes<br />
| yes<br />
| -<br />
| yes<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU L-GPL|GNU L-GPL]]<br />
| software<br />
| yes; weak<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| -<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU GPL|GNU GPL]]<br />
| software<br />
| yes; strong<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| -<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| software<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<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. 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 a however a reasonable requirement.<br />
<br />
:I wonder what the long term problems are going to be a thousand years from now should the world and our culture remain intact. Will these requirements seem reasonable for any popular works?<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 />
=== Anti-DRM ===<br />
<br />
Some licenses contain an anti-DRM clause.<br />
In some licenses this clause concerns only the licensee (licensor can use DRM 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 />
= License list =<br />
<br />
== Against DRM ==<br />
<br />
* current version: 2.0<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 />
=== 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 />
=== MIT License ===<br />
<br />
* author: MIT<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html]<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 />
=== Libre Commons License ===<br />
<br />
* author: The Libre Society<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.libresociety.org/library/libre.pl/Libre_Commons http://www.libresociety.org/library/libre.pl/Libre_Commons]<br />
<br />
This license is arguably the post explicitly political license for cultural works and software. All the licenses are condensed in two short paragraphs.<br />
<br />
The Libre Commons project introduces non-legal licenses for common networks of creative production that are radically democratic in form. These licenses have been designed to resist the corruption of the intellectual property system and the symbolic and state violence that maintain it. They do so by locating the worldly significance and promise of shared creativity and innovation in the inter-subjective recognition and absolute democracy of commonalty. This offers glimpses of a time and place where we see in other being and things, not the limitation, but the realisation of our freedom. In this context, the Libre Commons licences project aims to contribute towards fostering desire for a more democratic present.<br />
<br />
== Creative Commons licenses ==<br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons BY ===<br />
<br />
* complete name: Creative Commons Attribution<br />
* current version: 2.5<br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons BY-SA ===<br />
<br />
* complete name: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike<br />
* current version: 2.5<br />
<br />
== Design Science License ==<br />
<br />
* ''not maintained anymore''<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html]<br />
<br />
== Free Art License ==<br />
<br />
* current version: 1.2<br />
* author: [http://artlibre.org/ Copyleft Attitude]<br />
* reference URL (English): [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/]<br />
* reference URL (French): [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/ http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/]<br />
<br />
== GNU FDL ==<br />
<br />
* complete name: GNU Free Documentation License<br />
* current version: 1.2<br />
* author: [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html]<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 />
== GNU GPL ==<br />
<br />
* complete name: GNU General Public License<br />
* current version: 2.0<br />
* author: [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html]<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 />
=Current draft=<br />
<br />
''(to be removed when the page overhaul is finished)''<br />
<br />
Tentatively, the following licenses are known to meet the criteria set out by the [[definition]]:<br />
* [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution License] (not free for Debian) - allows a third party to create a derived work (e.g. translation or text to voice) and release that under a non-free license.<br />
* [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License] (not free for Debian)<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License] when no invariant sections are specified (this is important)<br />
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] (not free for Debian)<br />
* [http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2.html Against DRM 2.0] <br />
* All [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html GNU-GPL compatible free software licenses]. While many of them are specific to software, some are worded so as to apply to all kinds of digital works. For example, the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU GPL] is often applied to non-software works (such as computer graphics, game scenarios...).<br />
<br />
In addition, works in the [[w:public domain|public domain]] are also free content as per the definition.<br />
<br />
To be verified:<br />
* [http://www.wikiweise.de/wiki/Wikiweise%3AFreie%20Wiki-Lizenz Freie Wiki-Lizenz]<br />
<br />
Controversial:<br />
* [http://iang.info/en IANG license] - seeks to enforce lots of things that are outside of the copyright realm (like financial transparency, right of developers to have a voice in the development process, etc.)<br />
<br />
= Commentary on non-free licenses =<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/NC|Essay about the Creative Commons non-commercial restriction]]</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Licenses&diff=2605Talk:Licenses2007-02-16T11:36:11Z<p>Antoine: /* (not) adding new licenses */</p>
<hr />
<div>== An idea for a proper grid ==<br />
<br />
I suggest to send a questionnarie to the organizations that have published the licenses.<br />
Otherwise, we risk to get into trouble these organizations. The grid involves a responsability<br />
(it is not a simple definition).<br />
Antoine is the principal developer of the grid and he doesn't know well the licenses that he values.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 22:15, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:You can draft such a questionnaire, send it to the interested parties, collect answers and publish them verbatim somewhere (preferably on a separate page because it may be quite long).<br />
:But the responsibility argument is nonsense: there is no risk for third-party organizations to get sued for what we say here, since they don't officially take part. Also, it is obvious this page is not legal advice. As is said in the first paragraph: ''"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."'' I believe this disclaimer is clear enough, but you can suggest an alternative if you think it's not.<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:20, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::The problem is not legal, the problem is ethical. For example, you said that GFDL doesn't contain an anti-DRM clause and you wrote "no" in the grid. Without my providential correction, your words would still be see as true by many people. This is a negative fact for FSF. You don't understand this problem?? :-( We can draft a questionnaire '''together'''. I'm democratic, Antoine.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 15:41, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::It's a wiki and everyone can contribute. If you hadn't asked for the correction someone else would have suggested it later. <br />
:::You can make a first proposal for the questionnaire if you want (a separate page would certainly be more practical). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:53, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::I'm making it. Your criticism is distracted. :-)--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 18:48, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Also see: [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/LicenceEvaluation My License Page at Free Culture UK], which is an earlier effort towards license evaluation. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:48, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Against DRM 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
In my opinion, '''''Against DRM 1.0''''' is a free content license.<br />
<br />
*''This license is incompatible with any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts which are authorised or not authorised by licensor: this incompatibility causes the inapplicability of the license to the work.''<br />
<br />
*''Any breach of this license [...] will automatically retroactively void this license.''<br />
<br />
The sense is clear: '''licensor''' cannot license with ''Against DRM 1.0'' a work protected by DRM, because the license is inapplicable to works protected by DRM.<br />
'''Inapplicability of the license => no juridical effects.'''<br />
<br />
'''Licensee''' cannot protect the work or derivative works with DRM: if licensee protect the work or derivative works with DRM, the license will be '''void'''.<br />
<br />
Where is the vagueness? --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 02:32, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I find the "incompatible with .. acts which are authorised or not authorised" passage to be vague. Which acts, exactly, are we talking about? Could this mean that a licensor can say: "I disagree with your usage of encryption to conceal your personal data, as this is not an act which I have authorized?" Moreover, there is not even a reference to the work itself in the passage, so it's not clear to me that it only refers to "acts" which are related to the work. I think this passage needs to be explicit that we are talking about reducing the rights of ''others'' to the work through DRM.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Which acts, exactly, are we talking about?<br />
<br />
It's very simple: '''what does licensor authorize with the license?''' :-)<br />
<br />
''4. Grant of rights<br />
<br />
'''''Licensor authorizes licensee to exercise the following rights'':'''<br />
<br />
a. right of reproduction; ('''act of reproduction, act of multiplication...''')<br />
<br />
b. right of distribution; ('''act of distribution, act of diffusion...''') <br />
<br />
etc. etc. etc.<br />
<br />
The law (EUCD) say:<br />
''the expression ‘technological measures’ means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict '''acts [...] which are not authorised by the rightholder''' of any copyright or any right related to copyright.''<br />
<br />
Where is the vagueness?<br />
<br />
The sense is clear; these acts are: reproduction, distribution... and any<br />
copyright or any right related to copyright.<br />
--[[User:Tom|Tom]] 03:12, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I do agree with Erik, the wording is much too broad and vague. "acts which are authorised or not authorised" is completely unacceptable as it can mean anything (acts which are not authorized, by construction, are not part of license, in contrast to what you would like to let us think).<br />
<br />
::Instead "acts which are not authorized" are part of the license: these acts concern possible '''moral rights'''. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:By the way, 1) EUCD is not a law but an European directive 2) when the law is vague or dishonest, it is not helpful to base an argument on it. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::The law (EUCD is applied with national laws) is law: if you want legally oppose DRM, you must speak the language of the law. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::There is no point in trying to oppose ''what the law defines as DRM'' rather than ''what you find immoral''. About EUCD, what part of "European directive" don't you understand? Each country drafts its own transposition of EUCD and transpositions can be ''very different'' from the original. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:28, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::A license is a legal instrument and a legal instrument must be based on law. A license not based on law is not much effective and a license not much effective realizes nothing (moral principles, ideals etc). I think that you don't know directives' compulsoriness. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 20:26, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::Merely repeating yourself without reading what other people answered does not make you right... I guess this makes the thread dead, unless you want to bring fresh arguments onto the table (like on the cc-fr mailing-list, by the way). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:12, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::Other people? Who? I'm sorry but I'm not accustomed to uncivil tones of voice. You can speak with other people. :-) Thanks. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 11:08, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No need to use strong terms like "completely unacceptable", I'm sure the Against DRM license has good intentions which are very much in line with the goals of the definition. The question is, could it be clarified and improved? Tom, could you perhaps state what your position is in this matter - are you directly involved with the license? If so, we might be able to hook you up with some legal people from Creative Commons or Wikimedia.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 13:28, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: Against DRM is a new, redundant and minor license. It is not clear that it has been drafted by a legal professional. Both the FDL and the CC licenses have anti-DRM clauses. License proliferation is a bad thing, and there are already too many licenses with the CC license variants alone. Freedom Defined should not reproduce in Free Culture the damage that OSI are seeking to undo in Free Software. Promoting Against DRM is not a good idea, however good its intentions are. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:44, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I'm not involved with the license: I'm a jurist and I like this license for many reasons (what you call "vagueness", I call, in this case, "elasticity" and "knowledge of right").<br />
A license is a technical text that must be analyzed with a technical background.<br />
In my opinion, in this simple license nothing is casual. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:One might also refer to the [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00095.html debian-legal thread] about Against DRM 1.0. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Superficial discussion. :-) --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== GNU General Public License ==<br />
<br />
Any reason this license isn't included as a free content license? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: It is, under "all free software licenses".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Apologies, I missed that. Wouldn't it be better to explicitly list the GPL as many individuals use it as both a software and contennt license? - [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:36, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: Erm, it is, under "all free software licenses", which is followed by, "including the GNU GPL ..", but feel free to arrange the page differently.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 22:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I've tried to change the wording so as to make it explicit that the GPL is a proper free content license. Feel free to improve :) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:51, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== License characterization ==<br />
<br />
I think the current rough list is fine at the moment (the high priority task is to have a clear, precise, ethically correct, internationally secure Definition ;-)).<br />
However, in the future it will be useful to characterize the licenses more precisely according to a grid of criteria. Here are some criteria I suggest:<br />
<br />
=== Copyleft / non-copyleft ===<br />
<br />
Well, this is easy. Let's not forget about "agregation" however. For example, the GPL is a copyleft license which allows agregation with non-GPL works; the FAL is a copyleft license which does not allow agregation with non-FAL works (unless the resulting work is not considered a derived work under copyright law).<br />
<br />
=== Attribution / non-attribution ===<br />
<br />
Easy as well.<br />
<br />
=== Access to source code ===<br />
<br />
The GNU GPL mandates access to source code. The GFDL mentions transparent versions, which may (may not??) equate to source code.<br />
I don't know about any other free content licenses requiring access to source code; are there any?<br />
<br />
:The GFDL requires a source copy of the document, which must also be "Transparent" (that is, a simple, open standard format). The [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html Design Science License] also requires a source copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:57, 7 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
=== Internationalization scheme (translation / adaptation) ===<br />
<br />
This one is rarely mentioned. There are roughly two main internationalization schemes currently:<br />
* the GNU/FAL style: GNU licenses have only one legally binding version which is the original English one. The Free Art License is translated into several languages but translations are literal. The net effect is similar in both cases: the exact same concepts and clauses apply to everyone in the world.<br />
* the CC style: licenses are not just translated, they are ''adapted''. Consequently, licenses can be slightly different. For example, the French CC licenses have different wordings, warnings and restrictions compared to the American ones.<br />
<br />
It is not obvious whether both of these schemes make for safe international interoperability. However, it is important that the issue is explained.<br />
<br />
==Overhaul==<br />
<br />
Ok, so I've finally tried to give a clear structure to the page. I'm not sure to what level of detail we must go when talking about each license. In any case, help is welcome since the list is far from exhaustive.<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:10, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Er, 82.60.46.173, could you log in and tell who you are? It is easier to collaborate with human beings than with IP addresses ;)<br />
About your edits:<br />
* I would like to know why you removed the blurb about the Against-DRM License; it is an important question to know who wrote a license, so that we also understand their philosophy and their intents for the future; <br />
<br />
Movimento Costozero ( http://www.costozero.org/ ) is one of the most important association in Italy for digital freedoms ( http://www.costozero.org/wai/p10.html ). They invented Copyzero ( http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyzero ) and all their projects (for example, [http://www.scarichiamoli.org/main.php?page=presentazione "Scarichiamoli!" ], supported by Stallman, Lessig and Creative Commons Italy) aim at freedom.<br />
It's sufficient?<br>--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 01:27, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:The problem is not whether it's sufficient, it's why the Against DRM web site does not state any of this. A whois result is not a very interesting information since it doesn't indicate a statement of intent. I think it would be clearer if the Against DRM web site made a clear statement about its authorship, and also provided at least some insight into what philosophical values it wants to promote. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: The problem was that you did not know who wroted the license, his philosophy etc.. Now you know who wrote the license, his phylosophy etc. ... but the problem is that the Against DRM web site does not state any information about who wrote the license. :-) What can I say you?? Contact them! Speak with them. :-) --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:36, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::The problem is not for me, it's for potential users of the licence and for the general public. Inquiring in private is not practical and is not a sign that the authors are ''willing'' to provide information. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::This is your opinion. --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:06, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I don't understand the problem, Antoine: if an anonymous killer or Osama bin Laden publish a good free license, I use and suggest that license because it's a good free license. STOP. If Lessig publish a not free license ( this, for example: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/devnations/2.0/legalcode ), I don't use it. STOP. We must value only if a license is free. However, it seems that we know who writed that license and his philosophy... so I really don't understand the problem.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 10:26, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with you. A license (especially a ''copyleft license'') also often comes with an ecosystem, a community of authors sharing together some values. It is not an ''ad hominem'' argument as you try to make it look like. Licenses don't only have a legal value, they have a social and normative value. That's why the intent of the authors, the existence of a community are important. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::A license is a legal text. STOP. If Osama bin Laden publish a good legal text, I use it with any problem. However, there is a not secret organization behind that license. Where is the problem, Antoine? Why do you ignore this? --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 12:32, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::Again, the problem is explained above. I'm not interested in repeating myself...<br />
::::::As for ''"a license is a legal text. STOP."'', we'll have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:42, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::We have two different opinions: where is the problem? It seems that you want always the last word. :-) No problem! The last word is your!--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 20:19, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::Actually, I agree with Bob4 here. Of course a license is also accompanied by a community, but the community is nothing without a properly drafted and clear license. What is important is whether a license permits the publication of free content or not according to our definition, everything else is fluff. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:26, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::Yes, everything else is fluff. --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:06, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Who wrote Free Art License? <br><br />
You are Antoine Moreau?<br />
Can you tell me about your philosophy and your intents for the future?<br />
I'm sorry but I don't know you. You have an organization (without irony)?--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 01:32, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'm Antoine Pitrou, Antoine Moreau is a different person. As for the Free Art License, like most other licenses (including GNU and CC ones), its web site features detailed information about the history of the license, its intent, its authors, etc. (granted, many of those texts are in French) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Related rights==<br />
<br />
About "related rights", I don't agree that other licenses reserve them as you state. For example, the Free Art License is meant to grant them to the user (clause 2.1). Creative Commons licenses also grant them (clause 3c and 3d in by-sa 2.5).<br />
I welcome your help in solving these points. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:39, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
** ''2.1 FREEDOM TO COPY (OR OF REPRODUCTION)<br />
<br />
You have the right to copy this work of art for your personal use, for your friends or for any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose.''<br />
<br />
This is another thing: this is the freedom to copy the work (economic right)... all free content licenses grant this (the author/licensor grant this right).<br />
Related rights aren't rights of the author; they are rights of producers and executors.<br />
An example:<br />
I'm an author of a song and I release it under Free Art License.<br />
A producer takes my song and produces a CD with my song (new execution of my song): producer and executors '''acquire related rights over CD and registrations'''.<br />
So you can copy and distribute the work (the corpus mystichum). You can copy the registrations (the corpus mechanicum) for '''private use''' (private copy).<br />
But you cannot copy and distribute (etc, etc.) these certain registrations.<br />
<br />
Which is the solution?<br />
<br />
"Against DRM" say:<br />
<br />
'''... performances of the work, phonograms in which the work is fixed, broadcastings of the work must be released with a license that provides:<br><br />
a. the renunciation to exclusive exercise of rights referred to in the articles 4 and 5 (copyrights + related rights);<br>'''<br />
<br />
You can grab CD and share mp3 only if producer and executors expressly renounce to their exclusive rights (related rights)! Free Art License doesn't speak about related rights. Free Art License speak only about copyrights (the rights of the author).--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 01:27, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Did I say 2.1? I'm sorry, that should have read 2.2. Clause 2.2 of the FAL is "''2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)''". Freedom to interpret and freedom of representation covers related rights, at least as I understand it. Clause 2.3 of the FAL also talks about "''distribution (or representation) of the modified copy''".<br />
:Do you agree that CC licenses (at least by and by-sa) also grant related rights? (clauses 3c and 3d in [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode by-sa 2.5])<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Creative Commons License say:<br />
<br />
'''For the avoidance of doubt''', where the work is a musical composition:<br><br />
<br />
'''Performance Royalties''' Under Blanket Licenses.<br> Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a performance rights society (e.g. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), royalties for the public performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work.<br><br />
'''Mechanical Rights''' and Statutory Royalties.<br> Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a music rights agency or designated agent (e.g. Harry Fox Agency), royalties for any phonorecord You create from the Work ("cover version") and distribute, subject to the compulsory license created by 17 USC Section 115 of the US Copyright Act (or the equivalent in other jurisdictions).<br><br />
<br />
These royalties are possible only because some related rights (on corpus mechanicum) are exclusive.<br />
So CCPL expressly reserved related rights for music ('''for the avoidance of doubt''': infact, these related rights - as I said - are reserved also without this specification).''' --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:09, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:My English dictionary tells me the verb ''to waive'' means ''to renounce one's rights''. Therefore, the meaning of this clause is certainly the opposite of what you are saying: the licensor (not licensee) ''gives up his rights'' to collect royalties related to performance and the like.<br />
:Also, you said nothing about [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode clauses 3c and 3d] in by-sa. You can't ignore them, can you?<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:: Sorry I omitted the most important part (the final part):<br />
The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats. '''All rights not expressly granted by Licensor are hereby reserved.'''<br />
<br />
As in Free Art License, Licensor grant '''his''' rights (also related rights, but '''his''' related rights).<br />
Instead, '''License expressly reserves related rights that Licensor not granted''' (logically also related rights of '''other persons''': executors and procuders). It's very simple: you can consult Creative Commons about this.<br />
'''Only in "Against DRM" related rights are copylefted.'''<br />
<br />
This is the great invention of this license, imho.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 14:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:No doubt it's an interesting point, but it doesn't justify negating the fact that other licenses do provide related rights; the license list is not here to promote a particular license. I'll modify your last edit so as to give more useful information.<br />
:: Obviously other licenses grant '''licensor's related rights'''; my old grid said: ''Copylefted related rights'' -> ''NO/YES''. It was correct. Now the grid says: ''Related rights'' -> ''-/granted/ganted+copyleft''. It's correct too.<br />
<br />
I don't promote a particular license.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:21, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:By the way, when you significantly modify existing contents in a page, could you justify your edits somewhere in the discussion page? Thanks in advance. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:20, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:: Sure. --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:21, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Now I see Free Art License . :-)--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)<br />
<br />
You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions:<br><br />
- attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found,<br />
- specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,<br><br />
- specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the copies.<br><br />
<br />
Author/licensor is speaking about his rights: logically licensor give you, for example, the registration x of his song.<br />
He authorises you to copy registration x (because he is the owner of the related rights concerning registration x). But what about registration y executed by A and produced by B?<br />
The license doesn't bind executors and producers to the renunciation of their future related rights.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:28, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:The only interpretation you ''could'' draw (and I'm ''not'' convinced it's the proper one) is that the Free Art License is not copyleft when it comes to related rights. But it doesn't mean it "reserves" them since they are explicitly granted to the user.<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Only the related rights of the author (as executor and/or producer) are (logically) free (otherwise you cannot dowload that copy of the work!).<br />
::But any other related right is reserved (expressly reserved in CCPL).<br />
::Infact, I maked an example concerning future related rights of other persons.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 14:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I just had [http://www.april.org/wws/arc/copyleft_attitude/2006-05/msg00042.html an answer] from a lawyer who interprets section 3 of the FAL ("''3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK : All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents) into another work which would not be subject to this license.''") as concerning all possible uses of the work in subsequent work, including performances, recordings, etc. In that interpretation, related rights are copylefted under the FAL.<br />
::: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:56, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::: ''Les droits voisins ne portent pas atteinte aux droits des auteurs.'' Yes: I can reproduce, distribute, modify... the work (corpus mystichum) but I cannot distribute, reproduce, modify... for example, a certain registration (corpus mechanichum) of the work. It's simple. <br />
::::Many classical compositions are in public domain (so I can reproduce, distribute, modify... these compositions): but I cannot reproduce, distribute, modify... the version of Von Karajan produced by ''Deutsche grammophon''--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:46, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Carlos, I agree with your point about public domain, but it was not the argument I was making. Public domain is not transitive (copyleft) so it's no surprise that you can make proprietary works from public domain works. I quoted a specific clause ("''3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK''") which a lawyer thinks implies copyleft for related rights. I'm not claiming lawyers are always right (often they don't agree between themselves ;-)) but it's an interesting interpretation at least. What do you think about it?<br />
:::::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:25, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::''All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents) into '''another work''' which would not be subject to this license.''<br />
::::::An execution of the work is not another work! A certain registration of "work x" is not another work ("work y")!<br />
::::::Another work is a new work (work y) that contains work x (the original or derivate work released under the license).<br />
::::::So the incorporation does not concern related rights: the incorporation concerns copyrights on '''collective works'''. You can say this to the lawyer. :-)--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 13:13, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Why do you say an execution is not another work? It involves a creative effort from the executor (perfomer, etc.), which seems to make it qualify as a genuine work. If I take some existing lyrics and sing them, then I'm creating a work because singing qualifies as a creative action.<br />
<br />
::::::::'''No! This is a great, great error, Antoine''' The creativity of performers doesn't concern copyrights but related rights! When I play Sting, the author is Sting! Sting has the copyrights, I have related rights on that registration. Is it clear? And '''Sting cannot sell my performance of his song!''' Do you unerstand what I'm saying? If we don't know these basis, it's dangerous to work on this project.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 13:40, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand what you are saying, but I don't understand how it answers the question. The question is "why do you think performing a work does not create a separate or derived work?". The fact that the performer is not considered author the same way the original author is (the difference is in what economic rights are granted, AFAIK), does not mean the performance is not a work in itself. It seems to me that these are two separate questions. Aren't they?<br />
:::::::::If you want, I can try to put you in contact with the person I was talking about. Perhaps it is easier if you can discuss it together by e-mail?<br />
:::::::::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:04, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::::::He answered to you. A '''copyrightable work''' is object of '''immaterial property'''. A '''derivative work''' is not a certain material execution of '''the same work'''. A derivative work of a composition is a different composition, a composition based upon the original work but, for example, with a different melody in certain parts (or with a new arrangement... ).<br />
Two links for Antoine: <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work <br />
<br />
http://www.artslaw.org/DERIV.HTM <br />
<br />
(Antoine I suggest you to deepen your knowledges about copyright, related rights, derivative works etc etc). --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 15:09, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::An interpretation or performance is also ''the object of "immaterial property"'' (related rights are a form of "immaterial property"), so I suggest you find a more compelling argument.<br />
:::::::::::Also, let me remind you that the discussion is about a specific clause in the FAL. If you don't want to elaborate about the precise point which has been made, then please start a new discussion thread elsewhere. <br />
:::::::::::Oh, and please indent your comments properly, thx. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:29, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::::::::Ok, it's impossible to speak with you! :-(<br />
You said that derivative works are also the executions of a work. It is not true! If you don't believe to me, see that links! What means "indent your comments properly"??--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 15:38, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I did not say that. I said that, in my opinion, they should be considered ''either'' separate works ''or'' derivative work (please note the alternative). The point was that the FAL covers both (as for CC-BY-SA, I did not check).<br />
::::::::::::::Your opinion... ok ok. :-)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::(as for legal status of the performer, in French right the performer has moral rights on his performance - article [http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/VisuArticleCode;jsessionid=ExCJYN2Aj9HslC8Jihk2PYHxtCJ7m80Et0Mqi5sQyz5zkfzM2I2J!-495922973!iwsspad.legifrance.tours.ort.fr!10038!-1!2065712317!iwsspad3.legifrance.tours.ort.fr!10038!-1?commun=&code=&h0=CPROINTL.rcv&h1=1&h3=22 L212-2]).<br />
::::::::::::::Where I can read that, in France, a performance is a derivative work or a "separate work"? The creative work is the copyrightable work. See also: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travail_d%C3%A9riv%C3%A9 (in french: Un travail dérivé suppose une '''transformation''', '''modification''' ou '''adaptation''' qui constitue par elle même '''une création susceptible d'être protégée par le droit d'auteur'''. Only an author can make a copyrightable work or a copyrightable derivative work. A simple performer or a simple producer cannot make derivative works! Perhaps you don't know what juridically means the term '''work''' in the copyright laws. --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 16:13, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::Er, "copyright" does not exist in French right. There are "patrimonial rights", which belong to the author as well as to the performer (although in a different extent and with different modalities). So if you are looking to know whether performances and representations are "equivalent-copyrightable" in France, yes they are: they are the object of patrimonial rights.<br />
:::::::::::::::: You don't know what you say. :-/ '''You must study!''' Patrimonial rights aren't related rights! '''Also the terms are different! (La durée des droits patrimoniaux est de 70 ans à partir du 1er janvier suivant le décès de l'auteur. La durée de protection du droit voisin est de 50 ans à dater de la prestation. )''' In France you have '''Droits patrimoniaux''' (economic rights) and '''[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droits_voisins_du_droit_d%27auteur Droits voisins]''' (related rights). In France patrimonial rights regard the author, instead related rights regard: artistes interprètes, producteurs de phonogrammes et de vidéogrammes, entreprises de communication audiovisuelle. I'm tired Antoine, very tired. :-( --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 18:17, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::::You are wrong. ''Droits patrimoniaux'' do include ''droits voisins''. They are explicitly mentioned in [http://celog.fr/cpi/livre2.htm#c1 article 211-4] in the ''livre des droits voisins'' (''"La durée des droits patrimoniaux objet du présent titre (...)"'': this implies owners of related rights do enjoy patrimonial rights).<br />
:::::::::::::::::Les droits patrimoniaux objet du présent titre: LES DROITS VOISINS DU DROIT D'AUTEUR! There are patrimonial rights that regard author and (different) patrimonial rights that regard performers and producers: these patrimonial rights aren't author's rights! <br />
<br />
::::::::::::::::::That's exactly what I said two messages above, so perhaps you could have read it instead of trolling (''There are "patrimonial rights", which belong to the author as well as to the performer (although in a different extent and with different modalities''). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:10, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::::::::::::::I'm not a troll. I'm helping you to understand. Do you remember the question? '''What does french law say about derivative works?''' Does french law say that performances are derivative works?? No! Performances are simple executions of the work! Performances aren't new versions of the work! Only the authors make new versions of works. A performer is not an author!! And a producer makes a mechanical reproduction of a work: he's not an author! '''Work is only the object of a creation!''' An execution isn't a work but a reproduction of a work. An arrangement is a derivative work! See your law and stop FUD.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 19:24, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::::::::::::::: In all the world works and derivative works are works of an author. An author is not a performer or a producer. A big flame for a simple thing.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 15:41, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
http://celog.fr/cpi/sommaires/livre_1.htm Droit des auteurs are '''author's moral rights''' and '''author's patrimonial rights'''. Related rights (DROITS VOISINS DU DROIT D'AUTEU) aren't '''author's patrimonial rights'''. If you aren't inclined to know the truth, this is your problem.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 19:04, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::But talking about copyrightable/non-copyrightable is misleading in the context of French law. I'll try to ask the FAL authors if I meet them soon. Perhaps they can clarify in a future version of the license. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 17:01, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Carlos, if you hold the view that a performance is not a separate work, then the performance cannot be released under a separate license either (at least not without consent from the author).<br />
: What is a ''separate work''? This is not a juridical definition. ''Derivative work'' is a juridical definition. A performance is not a work! A performance is an '''execution of a work'''!<br />
''Against DRM'' says:<br />
''Derivative works, performances of the work, phonograms in which the work is fixed, broadcastings of the work must be released with a license that provides [...]''.<br />
Derivative works are a thing (new derivative creations of another author) and performances, phonograms etc are another thing (they aren't object of the action of an author)... and this is juridically correct. It seems that you don't understand this easy concept.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 20:54, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
So I still don't understand what the problem with FAL and CC BY-SA is (both are copyleft and grant related rights). Btw., Tomos also provided an answer for CC at the end of this section).<br />
: Copyleft only for copyrights, not for related rights. The copyleft clauses are different.<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, "Against DRM" applies to "works of the mind" which by your own reasoning don't include performances of a work: so it cannot be applied to a performance although clause 7 seems to mandate it.<br />
All in all, I'm still not convinced that this "copyleft related rights" is a real distinctive point. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:24, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
: The license treats copyrights and related rights in two different points: why do you continue to muddle the things? However, contact a jurist or a lawyer, I think that is the only solution in your case. :-) --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 20:54, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I would like you to ''answer'' the question above. As I said, I already contacted a lawyer on a mailing-list, who thinks there is no problem with the FAL's treatment of related rights.<br />
::Once again, there is also an answer by Tomos below which you still did not consider.<br />
::Since the Against DRM people are the only one raising this "related rights" concern, I believe it's not my task to clarify the matter. If you don't want to explain it, then please don't make further edits to the pages either, because I'm not willing to leave a distinction which doesn't seem shared by anybody but you.<br />
::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:12, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Do we know for a fact that the GPL and GNU FDL do not cover related rights? Aren't related works covered by derivative works language? Is this important in all jurisdictions? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:16, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
: Related rights does not regard software. So GPL (and the other software licenses) does not speak about related rights. It's normal. --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 20:32, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::I appreciate the response, but that isn't what I asked: Do we know for a fact that the GPL and GNU FDL do not cover related rights? Aren't related works covered by derivative works language? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:43, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::Copyrights and related rights are two different types of rights: a license regulates related rights only if the license expressly speaks about these specific rights. Otherwise the derivative works language regard only copyrights... and related rights are automatically reserved.<br />
For example, '''performance right''' allows music creators to claim royalties when their works are played. When you hear music (on the radio, TV, stage or in public), the composer usually receives royalties for this use.<br />
'''Mechanical right''' (the word "mechanical" indicates the use of a mechanical device to play the music) allows creators to claim royalties when their works are recorded. <br />
If the license does not speak about these rights (the juridical term is: related rights), the related rights owner keep the exclusive right to claim these royalties.<br />
In many countries related rights does not regard only royalties but also reproduction, modification, copy etc etc<br />
(for example, a performer can forbid to copy his execution of a song related under a free license that not speak about related rights). <br />
Attention, there is a '''(copy)right to copy etc etc''' (author's right) and a '''related right to copy etc etc''' (right of the author, performers and producers): they are different but the object is the same (this makes misunderstandings).<br />
Only if both rights are granted to you, you can copy (etc etc) the work.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 00:20, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I'm asking myself the same question, btw. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:04, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I cannot answer this question. But I raised this question and once at CC-license list [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-November/002854.html] in the context of proposed introduction of CC-BY-SA - GFDL compatibility. CC's responce on this matter is available at [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20051216/012205a3/FDLCompatibilityListComments-0001.pdf here]<br />
::::In short, the answer is uncertain to CC people's eyes, though they see it possible that the related rights are covered by GFDL. <br />
::::[[User:Tomos|Tomos]] 12:18, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::What do they think about the interpretation that CC-BY-SA does not copyleft related rights (i.e. grants them but does not guarantee that they will be granted to subsequent users too)? Could you try to ask them what they think about it (and how they intended it)?<br />
:::::Thank you :-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:54, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I am afraid I don't understand the question.<br />
::::::Are you talking about granting of related rights by the original licensor to users of derivative works? If so, this particular clause answers your question: ''"Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License."'' ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode CC-BY-SA 2.5] 8(b)). This means that if I compose a song, and someone performs it or arrange it, listener of the performance as well as the recipient of the arranged song will be granted the same set of rights from me as the performer and the arranger are granted.<br />
::::::Or is your question about if a licensee has to grant his rights in the same manner as the original licensor? If so, the answer seems to my eyes to be in the first part of 4(b): ''"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)."'' This means, using the same hypothetical example, the performer and arranger are required to grant substantially the same set of their rights to the users of their works as I did to them.<br />
::::::Combined, related rights related to the original work, its derivatives, and any of performances thereof are granted to licensees.<br />
::::::But well, I cannot give any official words of CC, and I am not a lawyer. If difficult question exists, I am more than happy to relay it to the list. (Though questions posted there are not answered in official manner many times.) [[User:Tomos|Tomos]] 17:19, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== GPL Non-Attribution? ==<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if the GPL should be categorised as a non-attribution license: isn't the requirement that it requires that the original copyright notice be kept equivalent to attribution? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:33, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:I'm not sure either. I've tried to talk about this point in the Attribution section. It seems to me that often, copyright notice and authorship notice are separate; the copyright notice merely mentions the main or initial author (or the corporate copyright holder), while the authorship notice lists all contributors. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:41, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::Can the copyright notice not also be used as a mechanism for attribution as well? I.e. by listing all the contributors in the copyright section. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 19:29, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::I think the mere difference is that you can do it but you don't require others to do so. Subsequent versions of the work may adopt a different policy (for example including contributors' work without giving authorship), without the original authors having a word in it. An Attribution clause prevents that.<br />
:::As for knowing whether this is important, well... ;) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:47, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::Is that a substantial difference? Subsequent contributors can choose to list authors in the copyright notice. Optional attribution is still attribution. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:11, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::The attribution clause is a requirement, just like copyleft or source code requirements. That's the whole point of it ;-) Of course, you can always grant more rights than the license asks you to. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:38, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::Why do you say that, Antoine, that seems like a spurious requirement for an attribution license. Why should we require attribution even on anonymous, unwilling contributors? The attribution in the GPL is still required in the sense that you must maintain copyright notices. What more is required? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:42, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::Ricardo, I'm not saying that ''we should require'' attribution for every contribution, I'm saying that some licenses do and some licenses don't. All of them are free, it's just a distinctive point that some people will find important.<br />
:::::::Perhaps we may drop the "attribution" column in the grid if everybody finds it is useless, but I don't think it is (considering for example that non-attribution CC licenses were dropped after it was found that very few people were using them). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:00, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I also note that you list the attribution in the GFDL as "partial" - whatever that means. This seems unncessary. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:47, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::It is partial because it does not mandate that any significant contributor is mentioned, just the "five principal authors" (whatever that means since the GFDL doesn't precise). Therefore it is not really what other licenses call attribution. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:00, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Ricardo, this is what the GPL says:<br />
"''You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately '''publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice''' and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.''"<br />
(emphasis mine)<br />
<br />
I still do not see "appropriate copyright notice" as a proper recognition of authorship (we do not know what "appropriate" means here btw.). A copyright notice is a legal statement but it does not state who is (are) the actual author(s) of the work. A movie can be "copyright Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer".<br />
<br />
For example, if you look at the source tree for a project like [http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/ GCC], the "copyright notice" in the [http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/README?rev=1.5&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup README] file does not contain authorship. There is also a [http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/MAINTAINERS?rev=1.442&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup MAINTAINERS] file which does not qualify as a copyright notice, and probably doesn't contain complete authorship information.<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:45, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Anti-DRM provisions ==<br />
<br />
Hi everyone,<br />
<br />
I'm not sure why some people seem to consider that the GPL and GFDL include some anti-DRM provisions.<br />
* The GPL v2 clearly doesn't (v3 should remain off-topic until it is officially released, IMHO).<br />
* As for the GFDL, I don't think "transparent copies" can be considered "anti-DRM" in the same way as the CC licenses. The GFDL does not forbid use of DRM, it only mentions that you must ''also'' provide a copy in a transparent format.<br />
<br />
Your thoughts?<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:43, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
GFDL:<br />
''You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.''<br />
Antoine, this is DRM!--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 20:11, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Indeed, Antoine, if you are preparing this page you should really be reading the licenses in question more carefully. I'm also not at all certain why we need to provide a license matrix: surely, on this site, all we care about is whether a license is free content or not, according to our own definition. I'm sure the information is useful, but it seems useless for our purposes other than as some attempt to bash other, non-CC and non-AL licenses. -[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:19, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I similarly note that the GFDL *is* an attribution license:<br />
::''List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.''[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html]<br />
:I would recommend you familiarise yourself with the licenses in question. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:23, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::The matrix is not meant as an absolute reference, just to give a clearer view of the landscape. Erik's request was for a license guide and I thought categorizing licenses against a set of criteria would bring a bit of clarity in the landscape.<br />
::We could just make a textual description of each license, but it would be even more subject to judgemental commentary (for example, the FSF's commentary in their list of licenses is usually far from neutral; it is not a problem for the FSF since it is really one person's voice). So I'm not sure what alternative can be found which would be both useful and rather objective.<br />
::Thanks for the corrections on the GFDL, by the way.<br />
::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:34, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I this best solution is to simply maintaining a list of free and non-free content licenses with descriptions of why they are or are not free content, as per the FSF. The matrix as it stands seems designed to favor CC licenses. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:39, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Hmm, I'm a bit confused if the matrix really seems designed to favor CC. What makes you think it is? I am not a CC fan...<br />
::::I have chosen some initial criteria that I found were important. I had already proposed this criteria in the discussion page (see [[#License_characterization]]). Other people added additional criteria (namely, "Anti-DRM" and "Related Rights").<br />
::::As I said [[Licenses#Criteria_for_choosing_a_license|in the page]], the criteria are not meant to indicate whether a license is "good" or "bad" (some people prefer copyleft, others non-copyleft, same for anti-DRM clauses, etc.) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:53, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::I suppose it was all the "no"s listed against the GNU licenses as opposed to all the "yes"'s listed against the other non-GNU licenses. I think we are confusing this wiki with Wikipedia: we do not care about the aspects of licenses (other organisations already provide this infomation, such as the CC). What we do care about is whether a license is free or non-free and we should focus on providing this infomation which we can't really do until we actually have a final and agreed upon FCD. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:46, 24 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== BSD advertising clause ==<br />
<br />
Rob, I've changed your edits regarding the advertising clause in the original BSD license. First, the FSF [http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#OriginalBSD does not consider it non-free] (''"This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the `obnoxious BSD advertising clause'. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free."'').<br />
<br />
Second, this is not the same as attribution since the advertising clause requires a specific sentence in "''all advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software''" - which is much broader than just derivative works, and stricter than asking to mention the name of authors (as the FSF [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html remarks], ''"other developers did not copy the clause verbatim. They changed it, replacing `University of California' with their own institution or their own names. The result is a plethora of licenses, '''requiring a plethora of different sentences'''."'' (emphasis mine)).<br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:54, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== I would like to see a CC-By-SA with source or 'transparent copy' requirement ==<br />
<br />
GFDL is too convoluted. DSL lacks attribution (though attribution is often effort-free with source req). Most anti-DRM sections are either too broad (GFDL) or too convoluted (GPL v3 draft). So maybe a CC-By-SA+TS (TS=transparent source). <br />
<br />
There is another dimension to things too, mainly pointed out in the GPL vs. L-GPL. Whether the Share-Alike / copyleft is viral when it comes to integration of the object into a larger object.<br />
<br />
== (not) adding new licenses ==<br />
<br />
Hi. Just saw some people added the LGPL and the "Libre Commons License" to the license list. While adding the LGPL is arguably justified (it's one of the prominent software licenses), I don't agree about the Libre Commons License. The Libre Commons Licenses are not legal licenses. They do not give the rights that are mentioned in the definition. Whatever the intent behind these licenses, we cannot fool the readers into thinking that using them will legally guarantee that their works are free. So let's remove them.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:36, 16 February 2007 (CET)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Licenses&diff=2604Talk:Licenses2007-02-16T11:35:51Z<p>Antoine: </p>
<hr />
<div>== An idea for a proper grid ==<br />
<br />
I suggest to send a questionnarie to the organizations that have published the licenses.<br />
Otherwise, we risk to get into trouble these organizations. The grid involves a responsability<br />
(it is not a simple definition).<br />
Antoine is the principal developer of the grid and he doesn't know well the licenses that he values.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 22:15, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:You can draft such a questionnaire, send it to the interested parties, collect answers and publish them verbatim somewhere (preferably on a separate page because it may be quite long).<br />
:But the responsibility argument is nonsense: there is no risk for third-party organizations to get sued for what we say here, since they don't officially take part. Also, it is obvious this page is not legal advice. As is said in the first paragraph: ''"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."'' I believe this disclaimer is clear enough, but you can suggest an alternative if you think it's not.<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:20, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::The problem is not legal, the problem is ethical. For example, you said that GFDL doesn't contain an anti-DRM clause and you wrote "no" in the grid. Without my providential correction, your words would still be see as true by many people. This is a negative fact for FSF. You don't understand this problem?? :-( We can draft a questionnaire '''together'''. I'm democratic, Antoine.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 15:41, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::It's a wiki and everyone can contribute. If you hadn't asked for the correction someone else would have suggested it later. <br />
:::You can make a first proposal for the questionnaire if you want (a separate page would certainly be more practical). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:53, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::I'm making it. Your criticism is distracted. :-)--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 18:48, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Also see: [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/LicenceEvaluation My License Page at Free Culture UK], which is an earlier effort towards license evaluation. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:48, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Against DRM 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
In my opinion, '''''Against DRM 1.0''''' is a free content license.<br />
<br />
*''This license is incompatible with any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts which are authorised or not authorised by licensor: this incompatibility causes the inapplicability of the license to the work.''<br />
<br />
*''Any breach of this license [...] will automatically retroactively void this license.''<br />
<br />
The sense is clear: '''licensor''' cannot license with ''Against DRM 1.0'' a work protected by DRM, because the license is inapplicable to works protected by DRM.<br />
'''Inapplicability of the license => no juridical effects.'''<br />
<br />
'''Licensee''' cannot protect the work or derivative works with DRM: if licensee protect the work or derivative works with DRM, the license will be '''void'''.<br />
<br />
Where is the vagueness? --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 02:32, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I find the "incompatible with .. acts which are authorised or not authorised" passage to be vague. Which acts, exactly, are we talking about? Could this mean that a licensor can say: "I disagree with your usage of encryption to conceal your personal data, as this is not an act which I have authorized?" Moreover, there is not even a reference to the work itself in the passage, so it's not clear to me that it only refers to "acts" which are related to the work. I think this passage needs to be explicit that we are talking about reducing the rights of ''others'' to the work through DRM.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Which acts, exactly, are we talking about?<br />
<br />
It's very simple: '''what does licensor authorize with the license?''' :-)<br />
<br />
''4. Grant of rights<br />
<br />
'''''Licensor authorizes licensee to exercise the following rights'':'''<br />
<br />
a. right of reproduction; ('''act of reproduction, act of multiplication...''')<br />
<br />
b. right of distribution; ('''act of distribution, act of diffusion...''') <br />
<br />
etc. etc. etc.<br />
<br />
The law (EUCD) say:<br />
''the expression ‘technological measures’ means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict '''acts [...] which are not authorised by the rightholder''' of any copyright or any right related to copyright.''<br />
<br />
Where is the vagueness?<br />
<br />
The sense is clear; these acts are: reproduction, distribution... and any<br />
copyright or any right related to copyright.<br />
--[[User:Tom|Tom]] 03:12, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I do agree with Erik, the wording is much too broad and vague. "acts which are authorised or not authorised" is completely unacceptable as it can mean anything (acts which are not authorized, by construction, are not part of license, in contrast to what you would like to let us think).<br />
<br />
::Instead "acts which are not authorized" are part of the license: these acts concern possible '''moral rights'''. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:By the way, 1) EUCD is not a law but an European directive 2) when the law is vague or dishonest, it is not helpful to base an argument on it. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::The law (EUCD is applied with national laws) is law: if you want legally oppose DRM, you must speak the language of the law. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::There is no point in trying to oppose ''what the law defines as DRM'' rather than ''what you find immoral''. About EUCD, what part of "European directive" don't you understand? Each country drafts its own transposition of EUCD and transpositions can be ''very different'' from the original. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:28, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::A license is a legal instrument and a legal instrument must be based on law. A license not based on law is not much effective and a license not much effective realizes nothing (moral principles, ideals etc). I think that you don't know directives' compulsoriness. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 20:26, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::Merely repeating yourself without reading what other people answered does not make you right... I guess this makes the thread dead, unless you want to bring fresh arguments onto the table (like on the cc-fr mailing-list, by the way). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:12, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::Other people? Who? I'm sorry but I'm not accustomed to uncivil tones of voice. You can speak with other people. :-) Thanks. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 11:08, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No need to use strong terms like "completely unacceptable", I'm sure the Against DRM license has good intentions which are very much in line with the goals of the definition. The question is, could it be clarified and improved? Tom, could you perhaps state what your position is in this matter - are you directly involved with the license? If so, we might be able to hook you up with some legal people from Creative Commons or Wikimedia.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 13:28, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: Against DRM is a new, redundant and minor license. It is not clear that it has been drafted by a legal professional. Both the FDL and the CC licenses have anti-DRM clauses. License proliferation is a bad thing, and there are already too many licenses with the CC license variants alone. Freedom Defined should not reproduce in Free Culture the damage that OSI are seeking to undo in Free Software. Promoting Against DRM is not a good idea, however good its intentions are. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:44, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I'm not involved with the license: I'm a jurist and I like this license for many reasons (what you call "vagueness", I call, in this case, "elasticity" and "knowledge of right").<br />
A license is a technical text that must be analyzed with a technical background.<br />
In my opinion, in this simple license nothing is casual. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:One might also refer to the [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00095.html debian-legal thread] about Against DRM 1.0. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Superficial discussion. :-) --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== GNU General Public License ==<br />
<br />
Any reason this license isn't included as a free content license? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: It is, under "all free software licenses".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Apologies, I missed that. Wouldn't it be better to explicitly list the GPL as many individuals use it as both a software and contennt license? - [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:36, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: Erm, it is, under "all free software licenses", which is followed by, "including the GNU GPL ..", but feel free to arrange the page differently.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 22:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I've tried to change the wording so as to make it explicit that the GPL is a proper free content license. Feel free to improve :) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:51, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== License characterization ==<br />
<br />
I think the current rough list is fine at the moment (the high priority task is to have a clear, precise, ethically correct, internationally secure Definition ;-)).<br />
However, in the future it will be useful to characterize the licenses more precisely according to a grid of criteria. Here are some criteria I suggest:<br />
<br />
=== Copyleft / non-copyleft ===<br />
<br />
Well, this is easy. Let's not forget about "agregation" however. For example, the GPL is a copyleft license which allows agregation with non-GPL works; the FAL is a copyleft license which does not allow agregation with non-FAL works (unless the resulting work is not considered a derived work under copyright law).<br />
<br />
=== Attribution / non-attribution ===<br />
<br />
Easy as well.<br />
<br />
=== Access to source code ===<br />
<br />
The GNU GPL mandates access to source code. The GFDL mentions transparent versions, which may (may not??) equate to source code.<br />
I don't know about any other free content licenses requiring access to source code; are there any?<br />
<br />
:The GFDL requires a source copy of the document, which must also be "Transparent" (that is, a simple, open standard format). The [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html Design Science License] also requires a source copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:57, 7 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
=== Internationalization scheme (translation / adaptation) ===<br />
<br />
This one is rarely mentioned. There are roughly two main internationalization schemes currently:<br />
* the GNU/FAL style: GNU licenses have only one legally binding version which is the original English one. The Free Art License is translated into several languages but translations are literal. The net effect is similar in both cases: the exact same concepts and clauses apply to everyone in the world.<br />
* the CC style: licenses are not just translated, they are ''adapted''. Consequently, licenses can be slightly different. For example, the French CC licenses have different wordings, warnings and restrictions compared to the American ones.<br />
<br />
It is not obvious whether both of these schemes make for safe international interoperability. However, it is important that the issue is explained.<br />
<br />
==Overhaul==<br />
<br />
Ok, so I've finally tried to give a clear structure to the page. I'm not sure to what level of detail we must go when talking about each license. In any case, help is welcome since the list is far from exhaustive.<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:10, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Er, 82.60.46.173, could you log in and tell who you are? It is easier to collaborate with human beings than with IP addresses ;)<br />
About your edits:<br />
* I would like to know why you removed the blurb about the Against-DRM License; it is an important question to know who wrote a license, so that we also understand their philosophy and their intents for the future; <br />
<br />
Movimento Costozero ( http://www.costozero.org/ ) is one of the most important association in Italy for digital freedoms ( http://www.costozero.org/wai/p10.html ). They invented Copyzero ( http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyzero ) and all their projects (for example, [http://www.scarichiamoli.org/main.php?page=presentazione "Scarichiamoli!" ], supported by Stallman, Lessig and Creative Commons Italy) aim at freedom.<br />
It's sufficient?<br>--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 01:27, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:The problem is not whether it's sufficient, it's why the Against DRM web site does not state any of this. A whois result is not a very interesting information since it doesn't indicate a statement of intent. I think it would be clearer if the Against DRM web site made a clear statement about its authorship, and also provided at least some insight into what philosophical values it wants to promote. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: The problem was that you did not know who wroted the license, his philosophy etc.. Now you know who wrote the license, his phylosophy etc. ... but the problem is that the Against DRM web site does not state any information about who wrote the license. :-) What can I say you?? Contact them! Speak with them. :-) --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:36, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::The problem is not for me, it's for potential users of the licence and for the general public. Inquiring in private is not practical and is not a sign that the authors are ''willing'' to provide information. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::This is your opinion. --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:06, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I don't understand the problem, Antoine: if an anonymous killer or Osama bin Laden publish a good free license, I use and suggest that license because it's a good free license. STOP. If Lessig publish a not free license ( this, for example: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/devnations/2.0/legalcode ), I don't use it. STOP. We must value only if a license is free. However, it seems that we know who writed that license and his philosophy... so I really don't understand the problem.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 10:26, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with you. A license (especially a ''copyleft license'') also often comes with an ecosystem, a community of authors sharing together some values. It is not an ''ad hominem'' argument as you try to make it look like. Licenses don't only have a legal value, they have a social and normative value. That's why the intent of the authors, the existence of a community are important. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::A license is a legal text. STOP. If Osama bin Laden publish a good legal text, I use it with any problem. However, there is a not secret organization behind that license. Where is the problem, Antoine? Why do you ignore this? --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 12:32, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::Again, the problem is explained above. I'm not interested in repeating myself...<br />
::::::As for ''"a license is a legal text. STOP."'', we'll have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:42, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::We have two different opinions: where is the problem? It seems that you want always the last word. :-) No problem! The last word is your!--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 20:19, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::Actually, I agree with Bob4 here. Of course a license is also accompanied by a community, but the community is nothing without a properly drafted and clear license. What is important is whether a license permits the publication of free content or not according to our definition, everything else is fluff. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:26, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::Yes, everything else is fluff. --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:06, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Who wrote Free Art License? <br><br />
You are Antoine Moreau?<br />
Can you tell me about your philosophy and your intents for the future?<br />
I'm sorry but I don't know you. You have an organization (without irony)?--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 01:32, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'm Antoine Pitrou, Antoine Moreau is a different person. As for the Free Art License, like most other licenses (including GNU and CC ones), its web site features detailed information about the history of the license, its intent, its authors, etc. (granted, many of those texts are in French) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Related rights==<br />
<br />
About "related rights", I don't agree that other licenses reserve them as you state. For example, the Free Art License is meant to grant them to the user (clause 2.1). Creative Commons licenses also grant them (clause 3c and 3d in by-sa 2.5).<br />
I welcome your help in solving these points. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:39, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
** ''2.1 FREEDOM TO COPY (OR OF REPRODUCTION)<br />
<br />
You have the right to copy this work of art for your personal use, for your friends or for any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose.''<br />
<br />
This is another thing: this is the freedom to copy the work (economic right)... all free content licenses grant this (the author/licensor grant this right).<br />
Related rights aren't rights of the author; they are rights of producers and executors.<br />
An example:<br />
I'm an author of a song and I release it under Free Art License.<br />
A producer takes my song and produces a CD with my song (new execution of my song): producer and executors '''acquire related rights over CD and registrations'''.<br />
So you can copy and distribute the work (the corpus mystichum). You can copy the registrations (the corpus mechanicum) for '''private use''' (private copy).<br />
But you cannot copy and distribute (etc, etc.) these certain registrations.<br />
<br />
Which is the solution?<br />
<br />
"Against DRM" say:<br />
<br />
'''... performances of the work, phonograms in which the work is fixed, broadcastings of the work must be released with a license that provides:<br><br />
a. the renunciation to exclusive exercise of rights referred to in the articles 4 and 5 (copyrights + related rights);<br>'''<br />
<br />
You can grab CD and share mp3 only if producer and executors expressly renounce to their exclusive rights (related rights)! Free Art License doesn't speak about related rights. Free Art License speak only about copyrights (the rights of the author).--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 01:27, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Did I say 2.1? I'm sorry, that should have read 2.2. Clause 2.2 of the FAL is "''2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)''". Freedom to interpret and freedom of representation covers related rights, at least as I understand it. Clause 2.3 of the FAL also talks about "''distribution (or representation) of the modified copy''".<br />
:Do you agree that CC licenses (at least by and by-sa) also grant related rights? (clauses 3c and 3d in [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode by-sa 2.5])<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Creative Commons License say:<br />
<br />
'''For the avoidance of doubt''', where the work is a musical composition:<br><br />
<br />
'''Performance Royalties''' Under Blanket Licenses.<br> Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a performance rights society (e.g. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), royalties for the public performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work.<br><br />
'''Mechanical Rights''' and Statutory Royalties.<br> Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a music rights agency or designated agent (e.g. Harry Fox Agency), royalties for any phonorecord You create from the Work ("cover version") and distribute, subject to the compulsory license created by 17 USC Section 115 of the US Copyright Act (or the equivalent in other jurisdictions).<br><br />
<br />
These royalties are possible only because some related rights (on corpus mechanicum) are exclusive.<br />
So CCPL expressly reserved related rights for music ('''for the avoidance of doubt''': infact, these related rights - as I said - are reserved also without this specification).''' --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:09, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:My English dictionary tells me the verb ''to waive'' means ''to renounce one's rights''. Therefore, the meaning of this clause is certainly the opposite of what you are saying: the licensor (not licensee) ''gives up his rights'' to collect royalties related to performance and the like.<br />
:Also, you said nothing about [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode clauses 3c and 3d] in by-sa. You can't ignore them, can you?<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:: Sorry I omitted the most important part (the final part):<br />
The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats. '''All rights not expressly granted by Licensor are hereby reserved.'''<br />
<br />
As in Free Art License, Licensor grant '''his''' rights (also related rights, but '''his''' related rights).<br />
Instead, '''License expressly reserves related rights that Licensor not granted''' (logically also related rights of '''other persons''': executors and procuders). It's very simple: you can consult Creative Commons about this.<br />
'''Only in "Against DRM" related rights are copylefted.'''<br />
<br />
This is the great invention of this license, imho.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 14:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:No doubt it's an interesting point, but it doesn't justify negating the fact that other licenses do provide related rights; the license list is not here to promote a particular license. I'll modify your last edit so as to give more useful information.<br />
:: Obviously other licenses grant '''licensor's related rights'''; my old grid said: ''Copylefted related rights'' -> ''NO/YES''. It was correct. Now the grid says: ''Related rights'' -> ''-/granted/ganted+copyleft''. It's correct too.<br />
<br />
I don't promote a particular license.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:21, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:By the way, when you significantly modify existing contents in a page, could you justify your edits somewhere in the discussion page? Thanks in advance. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:20, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:: Sure. --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:21, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Now I see Free Art License . :-)--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)<br />
<br />
You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions:<br><br />
- attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found,<br />
- specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,<br><br />
- specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the copies.<br><br />
<br />
Author/licensor is speaking about his rights: logically licensor give you, for example, the registration x of his song.<br />
He authorises you to copy registration x (because he is the owner of the related rights concerning registration x). But what about registration y executed by A and produced by B?<br />
The license doesn't bind executors and producers to the renunciation of their future related rights.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:28, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:The only interpretation you ''could'' draw (and I'm ''not'' convinced it's the proper one) is that the Free Art License is not copyleft when it comes to related rights. But it doesn't mean it "reserves" them since they are explicitly granted to the user.<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Only the related rights of the author (as executor and/or producer) are (logically) free (otherwise you cannot dowload that copy of the work!).<br />
::But any other related right is reserved (expressly reserved in CCPL).<br />
::Infact, I maked an example concerning future related rights of other persons.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 14:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I just had [http://www.april.org/wws/arc/copyleft_attitude/2006-05/msg00042.html an answer] from a lawyer who interprets section 3 of the FAL ("''3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK : All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents) into another work which would not be subject to this license.''") as concerning all possible uses of the work in subsequent work, including performances, recordings, etc. In that interpretation, related rights are copylefted under the FAL.<br />
::: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:56, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::: ''Les droits voisins ne portent pas atteinte aux droits des auteurs.'' Yes: I can reproduce, distribute, modify... the work (corpus mystichum) but I cannot distribute, reproduce, modify... for example, a certain registration (corpus mechanichum) of the work. It's simple. <br />
::::Many classical compositions are in public domain (so I can reproduce, distribute, modify... these compositions): but I cannot reproduce, distribute, modify... the version of Von Karajan produced by ''Deutsche grammophon''--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:46, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Carlos, I agree with your point about public domain, but it was not the argument I was making. Public domain is not transitive (copyleft) so it's no surprise that you can make proprietary works from public domain works. I quoted a specific clause ("''3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK''") which a lawyer thinks implies copyleft for related rights. I'm not claiming lawyers are always right (often they don't agree between themselves ;-)) but it's an interesting interpretation at least. What do you think about it?<br />
:::::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:25, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::''All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents) into '''another work''' which would not be subject to this license.''<br />
::::::An execution of the work is not another work! A certain registration of "work x" is not another work ("work y")!<br />
::::::Another work is a new work (work y) that contains work x (the original or derivate work released under the license).<br />
::::::So the incorporation does not concern related rights: the incorporation concerns copyrights on '''collective works'''. You can say this to the lawyer. :-)--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 13:13, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Why do you say an execution is not another work? It involves a creative effort from the executor (perfomer, etc.), which seems to make it qualify as a genuine work. If I take some existing lyrics and sing them, then I'm creating a work because singing qualifies as a creative action.<br />
<br />
::::::::'''No! This is a great, great error, Antoine''' The creativity of performers doesn't concern copyrights but related rights! When I play Sting, the author is Sting! Sting has the copyrights, I have related rights on that registration. Is it clear? And '''Sting cannot sell my performance of his song!''' Do you unerstand what I'm saying? If we don't know these basis, it's dangerous to work on this project.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 13:40, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand what you are saying, but I don't understand how it answers the question. The question is "why do you think performing a work does not create a separate or derived work?". The fact that the performer is not considered author the same way the original author is (the difference is in what economic rights are granted, AFAIK), does not mean the performance is not a work in itself. It seems to me that these are two separate questions. Aren't they?<br />
:::::::::If you want, I can try to put you in contact with the person I was talking about. Perhaps it is easier if you can discuss it together by e-mail?<br />
:::::::::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:04, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::::::He answered to you. A '''copyrightable work''' is object of '''immaterial property'''. A '''derivative work''' is not a certain material execution of '''the same work'''. A derivative work of a composition is a different composition, a composition based upon the original work but, for example, with a different melody in certain parts (or with a new arrangement... ).<br />
Two links for Antoine: <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work <br />
<br />
http://www.artslaw.org/DERIV.HTM <br />
<br />
(Antoine I suggest you to deepen your knowledges about copyright, related rights, derivative works etc etc). --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 15:09, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::An interpretation or performance is also ''the object of "immaterial property"'' (related rights are a form of "immaterial property"), so I suggest you find a more compelling argument.<br />
:::::::::::Also, let me remind you that the discussion is about a specific clause in the FAL. If you don't want to elaborate about the precise point which has been made, then please start a new discussion thread elsewhere. <br />
:::::::::::Oh, and please indent your comments properly, thx. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:29, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::::::::Ok, it's impossible to speak with you! :-(<br />
You said that derivative works are also the executions of a work. It is not true! If you don't believe to me, see that links! What means "indent your comments properly"??--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 15:38, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I did not say that. I said that, in my opinion, they should be considered ''either'' separate works ''or'' derivative work (please note the alternative). The point was that the FAL covers both (as for CC-BY-SA, I did not check).<br />
::::::::::::::Your opinion... ok ok. :-)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::(as for legal status of the performer, in French right the performer has moral rights on his performance - article [http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/VisuArticleCode;jsessionid=ExCJYN2Aj9HslC8Jihk2PYHxtCJ7m80Et0Mqi5sQyz5zkfzM2I2J!-495922973!iwsspad.legifrance.tours.ort.fr!10038!-1!2065712317!iwsspad3.legifrance.tours.ort.fr!10038!-1?commun=&code=&h0=CPROINTL.rcv&h1=1&h3=22 L212-2]).<br />
::::::::::::::Where I can read that, in France, a performance is a derivative work or a "separate work"? The creative work is the copyrightable work. See also: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travail_d%C3%A9riv%C3%A9 (in french: Un travail dérivé suppose une '''transformation''', '''modification''' ou '''adaptation''' qui constitue par elle même '''une création susceptible d'être protégée par le droit d'auteur'''. Only an author can make a copyrightable work or a copyrightable derivative work. A simple performer or a simple producer cannot make derivative works! Perhaps you don't know what juridically means the term '''work''' in the copyright laws. --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 16:13, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::Er, "copyright" does not exist in French right. There are "patrimonial rights", which belong to the author as well as to the performer (although in a different extent and with different modalities). So if you are looking to know whether performances and representations are "equivalent-copyrightable" in France, yes they are: they are the object of patrimonial rights.<br />
:::::::::::::::: You don't know what you say. :-/ '''You must study!''' Patrimonial rights aren't related rights! '''Also the terms are different! (La durée des droits patrimoniaux est de 70 ans à partir du 1er janvier suivant le décès de l'auteur. La durée de protection du droit voisin est de 50 ans à dater de la prestation. )''' In France you have '''Droits patrimoniaux''' (economic rights) and '''[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droits_voisins_du_droit_d%27auteur Droits voisins]''' (related rights). In France patrimonial rights regard the author, instead related rights regard: artistes interprètes, producteurs de phonogrammes et de vidéogrammes, entreprises de communication audiovisuelle. I'm tired Antoine, very tired. :-( --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 18:17, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::::You are wrong. ''Droits patrimoniaux'' do include ''droits voisins''. They are explicitly mentioned in [http://celog.fr/cpi/livre2.htm#c1 article 211-4] in the ''livre des droits voisins'' (''"La durée des droits patrimoniaux objet du présent titre (...)"'': this implies owners of related rights do enjoy patrimonial rights).<br />
:::::::::::::::::Les droits patrimoniaux objet du présent titre: LES DROITS VOISINS DU DROIT D'AUTEUR! There are patrimonial rights that regard author and (different) patrimonial rights that regard performers and producers: these patrimonial rights aren't author's rights! <br />
<br />
::::::::::::::::::That's exactly what I said two messages above, so perhaps you could have read it instead of trolling (''There are "patrimonial rights", which belong to the author as well as to the performer (although in a different extent and with different modalities''). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:10, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::::::::::::::I'm not a troll. I'm helping you to understand. Do you remember the question? '''What does french law say about derivative works?''' Does french law say that performances are derivative works?? No! Performances are simple executions of the work! Performances aren't new versions of the work! Only the authors make new versions of works. A performer is not an author!! And a producer makes a mechanical reproduction of a work: he's not an author! '''Work is only the object of a creation!''' An execution isn't a work but a reproduction of a work. An arrangement is a derivative work! See your law and stop FUD.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 19:24, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::::::::::::::: In all the world works and derivative works are works of an author. An author is not a performer or a producer. A big flame for a simple thing.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 15:41, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
http://celog.fr/cpi/sommaires/livre_1.htm Droit des auteurs are '''author's moral rights''' and '''author's patrimonial rights'''. Related rights (DROITS VOISINS DU DROIT D'AUTEU) aren't '''author's patrimonial rights'''. If you aren't inclined to know the truth, this is your problem.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 19:04, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::But talking about copyrightable/non-copyrightable is misleading in the context of French law. I'll try to ask the FAL authors if I meet them soon. Perhaps they can clarify in a future version of the license. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 17:01, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Carlos, if you hold the view that a performance is not a separate work, then the performance cannot be released under a separate license either (at least not without consent from the author).<br />
: What is a ''separate work''? This is not a juridical definition. ''Derivative work'' is a juridical definition. A performance is not a work! A performance is an '''execution of a work'''!<br />
''Against DRM'' says:<br />
''Derivative works, performances of the work, phonograms in which the work is fixed, broadcastings of the work must be released with a license that provides [...]''.<br />
Derivative works are a thing (new derivative creations of another author) and performances, phonograms etc are another thing (they aren't object of the action of an author)... and this is juridically correct. It seems that you don't understand this easy concept.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 20:54, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
So I still don't understand what the problem with FAL and CC BY-SA is (both are copyleft and grant related rights). Btw., Tomos also provided an answer for CC at the end of this section).<br />
: Copyleft only for copyrights, not for related rights. The copyleft clauses are different.<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, "Against DRM" applies to "works of the mind" which by your own reasoning don't include performances of a work: so it cannot be applied to a performance although clause 7 seems to mandate it.<br />
All in all, I'm still not convinced that this "copyleft related rights" is a real distinctive point. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:24, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
: The license treats copyrights and related rights in two different points: why do you continue to muddle the things? However, contact a jurist or a lawyer, I think that is the only solution in your case. :-) --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 20:54, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I would like you to ''answer'' the question above. As I said, I already contacted a lawyer on a mailing-list, who thinks there is no problem with the FAL's treatment of related rights.<br />
::Once again, there is also an answer by Tomos below which you still did not consider.<br />
::Since the Against DRM people are the only one raising this "related rights" concern, I believe it's not my task to clarify the matter. If you don't want to explain it, then please don't make further edits to the pages either, because I'm not willing to leave a distinction which doesn't seem shared by anybody but you.<br />
::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:12, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Do we know for a fact that the GPL and GNU FDL do not cover related rights? Aren't related works covered by derivative works language? Is this important in all jurisdictions? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:16, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
: Related rights does not regard software. So GPL (and the other software licenses) does not speak about related rights. It's normal. --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 20:32, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::I appreciate the response, but that isn't what I asked: Do we know for a fact that the GPL and GNU FDL do not cover related rights? Aren't related works covered by derivative works language? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:43, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::Copyrights and related rights are two different types of rights: a license regulates related rights only if the license expressly speaks about these specific rights. Otherwise the derivative works language regard only copyrights... and related rights are automatically reserved.<br />
For example, '''performance right''' allows music creators to claim royalties when their works are played. When you hear music (on the radio, TV, stage or in public), the composer usually receives royalties for this use.<br />
'''Mechanical right''' (the word "mechanical" indicates the use of a mechanical device to play the music) allows creators to claim royalties when their works are recorded. <br />
If the license does not speak about these rights (the juridical term is: related rights), the related rights owner keep the exclusive right to claim these royalties.<br />
In many countries related rights does not regard only royalties but also reproduction, modification, copy etc etc<br />
(for example, a performer can forbid to copy his execution of a song related under a free license that not speak about related rights). <br />
Attention, there is a '''(copy)right to copy etc etc''' (author's right) and a '''related right to copy etc etc''' (right of the author, performers and producers): they are different but the object is the same (this makes misunderstandings).<br />
Only if both rights are granted to you, you can copy (etc etc) the work.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 00:20, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I'm asking myself the same question, btw. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:04, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I cannot answer this question. But I raised this question and once at CC-license list [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-November/002854.html] in the context of proposed introduction of CC-BY-SA - GFDL compatibility. CC's responce on this matter is available at [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20051216/012205a3/FDLCompatibilityListComments-0001.pdf here]<br />
::::In short, the answer is uncertain to CC people's eyes, though they see it possible that the related rights are covered by GFDL. <br />
::::[[User:Tomos|Tomos]] 12:18, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::What do they think about the interpretation that CC-BY-SA does not copyleft related rights (i.e. grants them but does not guarantee that they will be granted to subsequent users too)? Could you try to ask them what they think about it (and how they intended it)?<br />
:::::Thank you :-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:54, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I am afraid I don't understand the question.<br />
::::::Are you talking about granting of related rights by the original licensor to users of derivative works? If so, this particular clause answers your question: ''"Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License."'' ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode CC-BY-SA 2.5] 8(b)). This means that if I compose a song, and someone performs it or arrange it, listener of the performance as well as the recipient of the arranged song will be granted the same set of rights from me as the performer and the arranger are granted.<br />
::::::Or is your question about if a licensee has to grant his rights in the same manner as the original licensor? If so, the answer seems to my eyes to be in the first part of 4(b): ''"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)."'' This means, using the same hypothetical example, the performer and arranger are required to grant substantially the same set of their rights to the users of their works as I did to them.<br />
::::::Combined, related rights related to the original work, its derivatives, and any of performances thereof are granted to licensees.<br />
::::::But well, I cannot give any official words of CC, and I am not a lawyer. If difficult question exists, I am more than happy to relay it to the list. (Though questions posted there are not answered in official manner many times.) [[User:Tomos|Tomos]] 17:19, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== GPL Non-Attribution? ==<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if the GPL should be categorised as a non-attribution license: isn't the requirement that it requires that the original copyright notice be kept equivalent to attribution? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:33, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:I'm not sure either. I've tried to talk about this point in the Attribution section. It seems to me that often, copyright notice and authorship notice are separate; the copyright notice merely mentions the main or initial author (or the corporate copyright holder), while the authorship notice lists all contributors. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:41, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::Can the copyright notice not also be used as a mechanism for attribution as well? I.e. by listing all the contributors in the copyright section. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 19:29, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::I think the mere difference is that you can do it but you don't require others to do so. Subsequent versions of the work may adopt a different policy (for example including contributors' work without giving authorship), without the original authors having a word in it. An Attribution clause prevents that.<br />
:::As for knowing whether this is important, well... ;) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:47, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::Is that a substantial difference? Subsequent contributors can choose to list authors in the copyright notice. Optional attribution is still attribution. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:11, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::The attribution clause is a requirement, just like copyleft or source code requirements. That's the whole point of it ;-) Of course, you can always grant more rights than the license asks you to. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:38, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::Why do you say that, Antoine, that seems like a spurious requirement for an attribution license. Why should we require attribution even on anonymous, unwilling contributors? The attribution in the GPL is still required in the sense that you must maintain copyright notices. What more is required? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:42, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::Ricardo, I'm not saying that ''we should require'' attribution for every contribution, I'm saying that some licenses do and some licenses don't. All of them are free, it's just a distinctive point that some people will find important.<br />
:::::::Perhaps we may drop the "attribution" column in the grid if everybody finds it is useless, but I don't think it is (considering for example that non-attribution CC licenses were dropped after it was found that very few people were using them). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:00, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I also note that you list the attribution in the GFDL as "partial" - whatever that means. This seems unncessary. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:47, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::It is partial because it does not mandate that any significant contributor is mentioned, just the "five principal authors" (whatever that means since the GFDL doesn't precise). Therefore it is not really what other licenses call attribution. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:00, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Ricardo, this is what the GPL says:<br />
"''You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately '''publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice''' and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.''"<br />
(emphasis mine)<br />
<br />
I still do not see "appropriate copyright notice" as a proper recognition of authorship (we do not know what "appropriate" means here btw.). A copyright notice is a legal statement but it does not state who is (are) the actual author(s) of the work. A movie can be "copyright Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer".<br />
<br />
For example, if you look at the source tree for a project like [http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/ GCC], the "copyright notice" in the [http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/README?rev=1.5&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup README] file does not contain authorship. There is also a [http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/MAINTAINERS?rev=1.442&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup MAINTAINERS] file which does not qualify as a copyright notice, and probably doesn't contain complete authorship information.<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:45, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Anti-DRM provisions ==<br />
<br />
Hi everyone,<br />
<br />
I'm not sure why some people seem to consider that the GPL and GFDL include some anti-DRM provisions.<br />
* The GPL v2 clearly doesn't (v3 should remain off-topic until it is officially released, IMHO).<br />
* As for the GFDL, I don't think "transparent copies" can be considered "anti-DRM" in the same way as the CC licenses. The GFDL does not forbid use of DRM, it only mentions that you must ''also'' provide a copy in a transparent format.<br />
<br />
Your thoughts?<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:43, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
GFDL:<br />
''You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.''<br />
Antoine, this is DRM!--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 20:11, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Indeed, Antoine, if you are preparing this page you should really be reading the licenses in question more carefully. I'm also not at all certain why we need to provide a license matrix: surely, on this site, all we care about is whether a license is free content or not, according to our own definition. I'm sure the information is useful, but it seems useless for our purposes other than as some attempt to bash other, non-CC and non-AL licenses. -[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:19, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I similarly note that the GFDL *is* an attribution license:<br />
::''List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.''[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html]<br />
:I would recommend you familiarise yourself with the licenses in question. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:23, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::The matrix is not meant as an absolute reference, just to give a clearer view of the landscape. Erik's request was for a license guide and I thought categorizing licenses against a set of criteria would bring a bit of clarity in the landscape.<br />
::We could just make a textual description of each license, but it would be even more subject to judgemental commentary (for example, the FSF's commentary in their list of licenses is usually far from neutral; it is not a problem for the FSF since it is really one person's voice). So I'm not sure what alternative can be found which would be both useful and rather objective.<br />
::Thanks for the corrections on the GFDL, by the way.<br />
::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:34, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I this best solution is to simply maintaining a list of free and non-free content licenses with descriptions of why they are or are not free content, as per the FSF. The matrix as it stands seems designed to favor CC licenses. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:39, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Hmm, I'm a bit confused if the matrix really seems designed to favor CC. What makes you think it is? I am not a CC fan...<br />
::::I have chosen some initial criteria that I found were important. I had already proposed this criteria in the discussion page (see [[#License_characterization]]). Other people added additional criteria (namely, "Anti-DRM" and "Related Rights").<br />
::::As I said [[Licenses#Criteria_for_choosing_a_license|in the page]], the criteria are not meant to indicate whether a license is "good" or "bad" (some people prefer copyleft, others non-copyleft, same for anti-DRM clauses, etc.) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:53, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::I suppose it was all the "no"s listed against the GNU licenses as opposed to all the "yes"'s listed against the other non-GNU licenses. I think we are confusing this wiki with Wikipedia: we do not care about the aspects of licenses (other organisations already provide this infomation, such as the CC). What we do care about is whether a license is free or non-free and we should focus on providing this infomation which we can't really do until we actually have a final and agreed upon FCD. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:46, 24 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== BSD advertising clause ==<br />
<br />
Rob, I've changed your edits regarding the advertising clause in the original BSD license. First, the FSF [http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#OriginalBSD does not consider it non-free] (''"This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the `obnoxious BSD advertising clause'. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free."'').<br />
<br />
Second, this is not the same as attribution since the advertising clause requires a specific sentence in "''all advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software''" - which is much broader than just derivative works, and stricter than asking to mention the name of authors (as the FSF [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html remarks], ''"other developers did not copy the clause verbatim. They changed it, replacing `University of California' with their own institution or their own names. The result is a plethora of licenses, '''requiring a plethora of different sentences'''."'' (emphasis mine)).<br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:54, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== I would like to see a CC-By-SA with source or 'transparent copy' requirement ==<br />
<br />
GFDL is too convoluted. DSL lacks attribution (though attribution is often effort-free with source req). Most anti-DRM sections are either too broad (GFDL) or too convoluted (GPL v3 draft). So maybe a CC-By-SA+TS (TS=transparent source). <br />
<br />
There is another dimension to things too, mainly pointed out in the GPL vs. L-GPL. Whether the Share-Alike / copyleft is viral when it comes to integration of the object into a larger object.<br />
<br />
== (not) adding new licenses ==<br />
<br />
Hi. Just saw some people added the LGPL and the "Libre Commons License" to the license list. While adding the LGPL is arguably justified (it's one of the prominent software licenses), I don't agree about the Libre Commons License. The Libre Commons Licenses are not legal licenses. They do not give the rights that are mentioned in the definition. Whatever the intent behind these licenses, we cannot fool the readers into thinking that using them will legally guarantee that their works are free. So let's remove them.</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Existing_Movements&diff=2326Talk:Existing Movements2006-10-27T18:53:36Z<p>Antoine: /* Free roleplaying? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi,<br />
<br />
I suppose it will be useful to make a concise introduction to the existing movements centered around Free Contents/Free X.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 23:06, 24 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Although the IETF RFC documents are not completely free (allowance of [http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html#derivs derivative works] is only required in the scope of the standard drafting process itself), I think it can work as a good example of essential freedoms applied to scientific/technical cooperation.<br />
<br />
If other movements use the complete set of essential freedoms for similar purposes, we can replace the IETF with those movements. What do you think? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:24, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free roleplaying? ==<br />
<br />
What is free roleplaying?<br />
<br />
Do we have a tag or something we can insert into a section like this which is empty, requesting <<please expand>> or similar?<br />
<br />
thanks :-)<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:45, 26 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: You can read some details [http://www.freeroleplay.org/ here]. Ricardo Gladwell, who founded the Free Roleplaying community, took part in this wiki at this beginning, but he seems to have [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129#Is_anyone_there.3F lost interest].<br />
: The "free roleplaying" section was originally created for him to fill it in, since he has best knowledge of the subject. In his absence, perhaps we can write a few words and leave a pointer to http://www.freeroleplay.org for those who want to know more.<br />
: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:51, 27 October 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Existing_Movements&diff=2325Talk:Existing Movements2006-10-27T18:51:44Z<p>Antoine: /* Free roleplaying? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi,<br />
<br />
I suppose it will be useful to make a concise introduction to the existing movements centered around Free Contents/Free X.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 23:06, 24 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Although the IETF RFC documents are not completely free (allowance of [http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html#derivs derivative works] is only required in the scope of the standard drafting process itself), I think it can work as a good example of essential freedoms applied to scientific/technical cooperation.<br />
<br />
If other movements use the complete set of essential freedoms for similar purposes, we can replace the IETF with those movements. What do you think? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:24, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free roleplaying? ==<br />
<br />
What is free roleplaying?<br />
<br />
Do we have a tag or something we can insert into a section like this which is empty, requesting <<please expand>> or similar?<br />
<br />
thanks :-)<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:45, 26 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: You can read some details [http://www.freeroleplay.org/ here]. Ricardo Gladwell, who founded the Free Roleplaying community, took part in this wiki at this beginning, but he seems to have [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129#Is_anyone_there.3F lost interest].<br />
: The "free roleplaying" page was originally created for him to fill it in, since he has best knowledge of the subject. In his absence, perhaps we can write a simple stub article and leave a pointer to http://www.freeroleplay.org for those who want to know more.<br />
: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:51, 27 October 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=2317Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-10-25T19:06:22Z<p>Antoine: /* Final name */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. <br />
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: <br />
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]]. <br />
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:<br />
Users are free to<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 similarly.<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:<br />
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; <br />
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share <br />
enhancements or derived works.<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:<br />
<br />
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.<br />
<br />
Users are free to:<br />
<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim] <br />
<br />
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]<br />
<br />
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.<br />
<br />
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).<br />
<br />
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<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 />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Final name ==<br />
<br />
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Hu?<br />
: First, welcome back...<br />
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?<br />
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)<br />
<br />
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?<br />
<br />
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".<br />
<br />
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.<br />
<br />
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: It was important to us (Mako and myself, the co-initiators of the definition) to label the definition in a way which is agreeable to the important institutions of the Free Culture movement -- FSF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and so on. The discussion on the wiki was absolutely crucial to the entire process. All the names that have been listed here have been mentioned and repeatedly considered. Mako and I have spoken personally to Lessig, RMS, Moglen, and others about this. Now that, after many hours of talking, we have finally found something everyone seems to be able to agree to (more or less enthusiastically), you will have to understand that I am reluctant to second-guess the decision. Certainly, it is always nicer to have a larger scale community process to give a decision legitimacy, but I also believe that process is not an end in itself, and hope we can move foward together. I certainly appreciate (and am well aware of) all the work you have done on this wiki.<br />
<br />
:: Regarding your specific critique: the strength of "Free Cultural Works", in my opinion, is that it references the notion of "Free Culture" without explicitly being called a "Free Culture Definition". It also reduces the "work (labor)" vs. "work (intellectual)" ambiguity in the singular. For example, if I refer to a CD as a "Free Work", the response "So you've worked for free?" is almost inevitable. I do not agree that "Free Cultural" excludes software or scientific articles; in my opinion, both are very much and very clearly cultural works, and should be explicitly referenced.<br />
<br />
:: That the title of the definition itself is not quite catchy may not be such a bad thing -- we will not attempt to prescribe that you have to call free cultural works by that exact phrase. Instead, what I would like to do is to explicitly reference other phrases which have similar meanings, such as "free content" and "open knowledge".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: I understand you want to put Lessig, RMS and others on our side, but I think we shouldn't care. We have to do this work because FSF and CC refused to take position in the first place, so we are the ones setting a standard.<br />
<br />
::: Anyway, I'm ready to further contribute. But, sincerely, it will be difficult unless things stop being done in private. Regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:06, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== look forward to seeing updates, anyway ==<br />
<br />
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.<br />
<br />
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else ''generalised'', applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's ''Cultural'', and whether or not it's a ''Work'' however that is defined.<br />
<br />
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:<br />
<br />
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.<br />
<br />
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ philosophy] page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.<br />
<br />
:regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=2315Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-10-21T22:41:32Z<p>Antoine: /* look forward to seeing updates, anyway */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. <br />
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: <br />
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]]. <br />
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:<br />
Users are free to<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 similarly.<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:<br />
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; <br />
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share <br />
enhancements or derived works.<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:<br />
<br />
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.<br />
<br />
Users are free to:<br />
<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim] <br />
<br />
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]<br />
<br />
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.<br />
<br />
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).<br />
<br />
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<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 />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Final name ==<br />
<br />
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Hu?<br />
: First, welcome back...<br />
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?<br />
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)<br />
<br />
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?<br />
<br />
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".<br />
<br />
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.<br />
<br />
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== look forward to seeing updates, anyway ==<br />
<br />
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.<br />
<br />
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else ''generalised'', applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's ''Cultural'', and whether or not it's a ''Work'' however that is defined.<br />
<br />
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:<br />
<br />
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.<br />
<br />
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ philosophy] page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.<br />
<br />
:regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=2307Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-10-21T16:31:54Z<p>Antoine: /* Final name */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. <br />
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: <br />
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]]. <br />
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:<br />
Users are free to<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 similarly.<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:<br />
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; <br />
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share <br />
enhancements or derived works.<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:<br />
<br />
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.<br />
<br />
Users are free to:<br />
<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim] <br />
<br />
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]<br />
<br />
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.<br />
<br />
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).<br />
<br />
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<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 />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Final name ==<br />
<br />
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Hu?<br />
: First, welcome back...<br />
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?<br />
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)<br />
<br />
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?<br />
<br />
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".<br />
<br />
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.<br />
<br />
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2259Definition/Unstable2006-09-18T18:09:52Z<p>Antoine: /* What name to use */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - art works, 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 '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<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 />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<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 on the florishment 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 />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free 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 />
== What name to use ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. However, for your work to be truely free, you should use one of the free content [[licenses]]: merely stating that it is free is not sufficient.<br />
<br />
Please note that the term ''Free Content'' does not aim to obsolete other terms which refer precisely to the same essential freedoms. You can thus, if you like, refer instead to one of these [[Existing Movements|existing movements]].<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms that don't convey a clear definition of freedom, such as : Open Content, Open Access, Free Culture. 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 (e.g. scientific articles) that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" 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, 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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain ''optional restrictions'' on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These restrictions are described below.<br />
<br />
Apart from these allowed restrictions, the license ''must not'' include clauses that limit essential freedoms. Especially, ''it must not specify any usage restrictions'' (such as prohibiting commercial use of the work, restricting use depending on political context, etc.).<br />
<br />
==== Attribution of authors ====<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
==== Transmission of freedoms ====<br />
<br />
The license may include a clause, often called ''copyleft'' or ''share-alike'', which ensures that derivative works themselves remain free works. To this effect, it can for example require that all derivative works are made available under the same free license as the original.<br />
<br />
==== Protection of freedoms ====<br />
<br />
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: for example, access to ''source code'', or prohibition of ''technical measures'' restricting essential freedoms.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work ''must'' be covered by a free content 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-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. We hereafter list the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free content:<br />
<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of other people's rights:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship. Local regimes may differ in important ways from one another, especially on the question of moral rights (see note above). However, those regimes agree on excluding the public from almost all important rights related to works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2258Definition/Unstable2006-09-17T15:12:35Z<p>Antoine: /* Naming freedom */ simpler, shorter</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - art works, 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 '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<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 />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<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 on the florishment 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 />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free 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 />
== What name to use ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Of course, for your work to be truely free, you should use one of the free content [[licenses]]: merely stating that it is free is not sufficient.<br />
<br />
Please note that the term ''Free Content'' does not aim to obsolete other, more specific, terms which refer to the same essential freedoms. You can thus, if you like, refer instead to one of these [[Existing Movements|existing movements]].<br />
<br />
However, we discourage you to use other terms that don't convey a clear definition of freedom, such as : Open Content, Open Access, Free Culture. 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 (e.g. scientific articles) that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" 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, 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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain ''optional restrictions'' on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These restrictions are described below.<br />
<br />
Apart from these allowed restrictions, the license ''must not'' include clauses that limit essential freedoms. Especially, ''it must not specify any usage restrictions'' (such as prohibiting commercial use of the work, restricting use depending on political context, etc.).<br />
<br />
==== Attribution of authors ====<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
==== Transmission of freedoms ====<br />
<br />
The license may include a clause, often called ''copyleft'' or ''share-alike'', which ensures that derivative works themselves remain free works. To this effect, it can for example require that all derivative works are made available under the same free license as the original.<br />
<br />
==== Protection of freedoms ====<br />
<br />
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: for example, access to ''source code'', or prohibition of ''technical measures'' restricting essential freedoms.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work ''must'' be covered by a free content 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-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. We hereafter list the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free content:<br />
<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of other people's rights:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship. Local regimes may differ in important ways from one another, especially on the question of moral rights (see note above). However, those regimes agree on excluding the public from almost all important rights related to works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Existing_Movements&diff=2257Existing Movements2006-09-17T15:00:45Z<p>Antoine: /* Open Knowledge */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Free Art==<br />
<br />
There is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition.<br />
<br />
==Free Roleplaying==<br />
<br />
==Free Software==<br />
<br />
Cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition].<br />
<br />
==Internet Engineering Task Force==<br />
<br />
The [http://ietf.org/ Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)], which is the body governing the drafting and evolution of Internet protocols - without which the Internet, an unified interconnection of physically disparate networks, couldn't even exist -, has [http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html rules] concerning the rights that are granted on its published documents. Although a [http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html#derivs subtle restriction] on derivative works makes some of these documents not completely free, it is a good example of how Free Content's essential freedoms can be fruitfully applied to promote scientific and technical progress.<br />
<br />
==Open Knowledge==<br />
<br />
Cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition].<br />
<br />
==Open Source==<br />
<br />
Cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software.</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Existing_Movements&diff=2256Existing Movements2006-09-17T15:00:29Z<p>Antoine: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Free Art==<br />
<br />
There is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition.<br />
<br />
==Free Roleplaying==<br />
<br />
==Free Software==<br />
<br />
Cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition].<br />
<br />
==Internet Engineering Task Force==<br />
<br />
The [http://ietf.org/ Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)], which is the body governing the drafting and evolution of Internet protocols - without which the Internet, an unified interconnection of physically disparate networks, couldn't even exist -, has [http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html rules] concerning the rights that are granted on its published documents. Although a [http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html#derivs subtle restriction] on derivative works makes some of these documents not completely free, it is a good example of how Free Content's essential freedoms can be fruitfully applied to promote scientific and technical progress.<br />
<br />
==Open Knowledge==<br />
<br />
Cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition.<br />
<br />
==Open Source==<br />
<br />
Cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software.</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=2255Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-09-17T14:56:13Z<p>Antoine: /* Alternate preamble */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<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 />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2254Definition/Unstable2006-09-17T14:55:13Z<p>Antoine: /* Preamble */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - art works, 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 '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<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 />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<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 on the florishment 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 />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free 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 />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_resources Libre Resources] (see also the [http://communities.libre.org/Manifesto/ Libre Communites Manifesto] which is implicit in this definition and central to the free/libre movement).<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" 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, 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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain ''optional restrictions'' on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These restrictions are described below.<br />
<br />
Apart from these allowed restrictions, the license ''must not'' include clauses that limit essential freedoms. Especially, ''it must not specify any usage restrictions'' (such as prohibiting commercial use of the work, restricting use depending on political context, etc.).<br />
<br />
==== Attribution of authors ====<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
==== Transmission of freedoms ====<br />
<br />
The license may include a clause, often called ''copyleft'' or ''share-alike'', which ensures that derivative works themselves remain free works. To this effect, it can for example require that all derivative works are made available under the same free license as the original.<br />
<br />
==== Protection of freedoms ====<br />
<br />
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: for example, access to ''source code'', or prohibition of ''technical measures'' restricting essential freedoms.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work ''must'' be covered by a free content 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-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. We hereafter list the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free content:<br />
<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of other people's rights:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship. Local regimes may differ in important ways from one another, especially on the question of moral rights (see note above). However, those regimes agree on excluding the public from almost all important rights related to works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logo_contest&diff=2236Logo contest2006-09-02T21:40:31Z<p>Antoine: </p>
<hr />
<div>We need a "Free Content" logo that can be attached to works covered by licenses which meet the conditions defined in the [[Definition|Free Content Definition]]. This logo should consist of:<br />
<br />
* a symbol or sign that is the same for both logos (minor variations allowed)<br />
* a label, probably "Free Content"<br />
<br />
Logos '''must''' have a vector graphics source (SVG preferred), but '''must''' be uploaded in a bitmap format (transparent PNG preferred). A good, free software vector graphics application which can handle SVG and PNG exports is [http://www.inkscape.org/ inkscape]. The dimensions are up to you as long as the images scale well. In order for your logo to be used, the logo itself must be free content with a reduced attribution requirement, but we can work this out with you once we have picked your logo.<br />
<br />
To participate, [[Special:Userlogin|create an account]] and [[Special:Upload|upload your logos]]. A deadline will be announced once we have a better feel for how many submissions to expect. The [[moderators]] act as a jury.<br />
<br />
Why participate? Your logo may end up being used on millions of works large and small, giving you exposition and recognition. You will be fully acknowledged on this website as the artist. We may also announce prizes during the course of the contest.<br />
<br />
Some advice and ideas:<br />
* Don't make it too complex. See the Wikipedia article [[w:logo|logo]] for some information on what makes a good logo.<br />
* It's all about works being used freely, merged, copied, changed, and so on. A visual metaphor that reflects this may make the most sense.<br />
<br />
If you are confused by the wiki process, feel free to e-mail Erik at <tt>moeller AT scireview DOT de</tt>, and he will take care of things.<br />
<br />
''Please note:'' it was recently decided to [[Talk:Definition/Unstable#Pushing_to_1.0|drop]] the term "Free Expression" because it was too ambiguous in our context. Thus, we don't need two different logos anymore, only a "Free Content" logo.<br />
<br />
== New Creative Commons Logos ==<br />
<br />
Please, have a look at new logos proposed for CC. They are not official CC logos (yet) [http://x.narya.net/static/terry/cc_colors.png but may be in a future] [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 14:59, 8 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Current submissions ==<br />
===Swirly===<br />
"Swirly" by Erik Möller, color & b&w, available as SVG. I'm using the text "free culture" for now as a placeholder until we've decided on a final name for the definition. This probably has similarities to lots of existing logos due to its simplicity, but I feel that freedom is best defined visually through simple forms and shapes. The blue and green represent Sky and Earth, respectively, to indicate that this is a global movement; the open shapes are somewhat informed by the copyright "C", which is, in a way, subverted to express fluidity and constant change. The soft pink subtitle is meant to complete the three primary colors, red, green and blue, from which all other colors can be additively created. The shapes are also meant to be somewhat reminiscent of a [[w:bass clef|bass clef]].--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 18:15, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Swirly-logo-black.png|150px|]] [[Image:Swirly-logo-color.png|150px|]]<br />
<br />
:I like this design, but it doesn't work in small sizes. <br />
<br />
:16px: [[Image:Swirly-logo-black.png|16px|]] [[Image:Swirly-logo-color.png|16px|]]<br />
:32px: [[Image:Swirly-logo-black.png|32px|]] [[Image:Swirly-logo-color.png|32px|]]<br />
<br />
:[[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]]<br />
<br />
:: True. Could be made to work by making it a bit bolder, though I do prefer Marc's design below to my own.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 00:09, 25 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
===Yin Yang===<br />
"Yin Yang" by Bernhard Schillo. The shape of the logo is one half of the yin and yang symbol. I believe, this is a good basis for this logo, cause it symbolizes contradictions, which generate reality. In this case the "C" (for Culture) coexists with the "uncultured" nature. Or another possible connotation: free culture and not free culture. Human culture of property can't exist without the "seed" of free culture contained in itself and without a strong free culture on the opposition. The forces have to work together. <br />
The Logo also reminds to the Copyright-Logo. But the circle around the "C" is not a circle. The shape indicates, that something is given back. <br />
<br />
The logo should be elaborated if used. These are just my first ideas and drafts. I will think about it again when the discussion about the name is finished. And i hope, my english is understandable :)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_signet.png|Free_culture_logo_signet.png]] <br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_var.png|Free_culture_logo_var.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free Content Logo ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free3.png|left|Logo|thumb]][[Image:Freex.png|left|Logo|thumb]][[Image:glob.png|left|Logo|thumb]]<br />
<br />
<br clear="both"><br />
<br />
== Marc Falzon's logo ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|left|Free content (01), by Marc Falzon - full size]]<br />
Here is another logo proposal to illustrate the Free content idea : I made it with Inkscape, so the SVG source file is available.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--typ.png|right|Alternative fonts for logo Free content (01)]]<br />
<br />
The rings - using the universal colors of the rainbow - represent some pieces of content (''free'' content illustrated by the "open" part) intertwined. For the label, I also provide some alternative fonts : the jury is free to choose another one in this list to replace the original font.<br />
<br />
A "wiki logo" size version of my logo : [[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--wikilogo.png|Free content (01), by Marc Falzon - wiki logo size]]<br />
<br />
Then a "browser-icon" size, for use as ''favicon'' : [[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--favicon.png|Free content (01), by Marc Falzon - favicon size]]<br />
<br />
...hope you'll like it ! :-)<br />
<br />
<br clear="both"><br />
<br />
: I love it! This is definitely the nicest one so far. From the fonts, I think I prefer the third one from the top. However, we should make sure that the fonts we use are available under free licenses. Could you do a grayscale version of the logo part so we know if it's suitable for print?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 00:08, 25 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
'''This logo is not original.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Beautiful. It remembers to me pac-man:<br />
http://web.candyland.cx/~bmfrankl/xlight/ftp/samples/pics/pac-man/pac-man.jpg<br />
--[[User:Telemaco|Telemaco]] 19:24, 2 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free Expression ==<br />
<br />
This is a rough draft of an idea for a 'freedom of expression' logo by Mark Clements (registered as HappyDog). A better paint-palette shape would be nice, and maybe a photographic image rather than the basic vector image I have used here. In fact, having said that I uploaded a quick mock-up with a photographic 'cloud' image. Not great, but any image could be used if this was thought to be a good direction to go in. --[[User:HappyDog|Mark Clements (HappyDog)]] 02:35, 6 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom of Expression.png]] [[Image:Freedom of Expression - clouds.png]]<br />
<br />
: This is pretty, though perhaps a little too strong visually. I'd prefer something more abstract which can be used equally well for art, music, scientific data, encyclopedic articles, and so on.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]]<br />
<br />
::I like the "yin yang" proposal above very much. Perhaps it is a little too naked right now, but it can probably be elaborated upon by a skilled person (perhaps the author himself) ;-)) I think the basic graphical concept is simple, clear and rather adequate. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:12, 14 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Telemaco's Logos ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:logo59.png|left|Logo|thumb]] [[Image:logo59fi.png|left|Logo|]]<br />
<br />
Butterfly FC.<br />
Black over white and white over black.<br />
No problem in gray scale.<br />
Very good over t-shirt.<br />
Simple and elegant.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br clear="both"><br />
<br />
== Copyleft ==<br />
<br />
This is a draft I did earlier this year. For more information on the design see http://haag.openkhm.de/132<br />
<br />
http://www.openkhm.de/resserver.php?blogId=3&resource=copyrightleft.gif<br />
<br />
From copy'''right''' to copy'''left'''<br />
<br />
http://www.openkhm.de/resserver.php?blogId=3&resource=transformation.gif<br />
<br />
I marked the compliances in Free Content and Free Expression ('''ee''') and took the resulting sign.<br />
<br />
http://www.openkhm.de/resserver.php?blogId=3&resource=free_locx.gif<br />
<br />
== FKey ==<br />
<br />
Start for this design was to break up the circle of usual copyright-sign via a '''F''' like freedom<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freekey_fc.gif]]<br />
<br />
I took the resulting form that resembles a key<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freekey_3.gif]]<br />
<br />
C for the Free Content Mark, X for Free Expression and the empty one for a general Freedom Defined logo<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freekey_gross.gif]]<br />
<br />
All logos can be combined with type...<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freekey_3-type.gif]]<br />
<br />
... and should also work in icon size<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freekey_xicon_weiss.gif ]] [[Image:Freekey_cicon_weiss.gif ]] [[Image:Freekey_xicon_schwarz.gif ]] [[Image:Freekey_cicon_schwarz.gif ]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Dan Lockton's logos ==<br />
<br />
My starting point is the observation that since the (C) mark is so universally known, the freedom marks ultimately need to be equally so. The (C) mark is also very easy for anyone to draw by hand and thus add to their work at the time of creation - again, the freedom mark needs to be equally easy to draw by hand (with distinct features which are memorable and recognisable even if imperfectly reproduced).<br />
<br />
It may be 'boring' but it would seem that an F in a circle fulfils these requirements well - but it is rather dull. There are also a number of company logos using a lower-case script f in a circle, and this could cause confusion. So, initially, I tried some stylised letter fs in a circle:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_1.png]]<br />
<br />
These still look rather corporate and not especially 'friendly'. Lower-case text is often perceived as friendlier and less authoritarian than capital letters, and actual fonts rather than heavily stylised letters also help give a more human feel to the logo. So I looked at a couple of the best-known Free/Open Source fonts, [http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=Gentium Gentium] and [http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ Bitstream Vera Sans] and played with the lower-case f from these fonts:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_2.png]]<br />
<br />
The logo using Bitstream looks more 'modern'/futuristic than the Gentium one, especially when matched with suitably dynamic, friendly colours:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_3.png]]<br />
<br />
However, given the strong literary component of the free culture movement, the serifed, more 'classic' Gentium f somehow seems more appropriate:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_4.png]]<br />
<br />
To distinguish between 'free content' and 'free expression', as mentioned in the intro to the contest, I considered simply using a warmer, more 'passionate' colour:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_5.png]]<br />
<br />
But it seemed as though something more was needed: a more distinctive, genuinely playful extension of the logo. Hence, the "Flowering of Creativity" concept developed:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_6.png]]<br />
<br />
There are many metaphors which work well when comparing free expression and free culture to a flower:<br />
<br />
- Free culture will lead to an enormous '''flowering of creativity''' around the world, a blossoming of rich content<br />
<br />
- The multiplicity of '''petals''' symbolises the '''many people and groups''' around the world who together make up the value of the freedom movement<br />
<br />
- The flower is open, just as works available freely are '''open to all'''<br />
<br />
- The 'garden' of free culture is a fertile one: so many projects and works can '''grow from the work of others''' - pretty much the purpose of the GPL<br />
<br />
Lastly - note the black & white versions of the flower logo: easy to draw quickly by hand (particularly the right-hand one) to add to any document, artwork, etc to show it's being freely licensed. The variations in how the flower is drawn, from exaggeratedly bubbly petals to precisely geometric, again demonstrate the diversity of the free culture movement, and will allow a playful personality to be injected with every hand drawing of the logo - truly free expression! The logo itself becomes a triumphant doodle symbolising peaceful rejection of the copyright hegemony.<br />
<br />
Finally, then, these are my favoured versions of the logos:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_7.png]]<br />
<br />
The simple 'f' in a circle illustrates free content and perhaps the movement generally; the flower version explicitly emphasises freedom of expression. The colours are only a suggestion! --[[User:Dan Lockton|Dan Lockton]] 18:34, 2 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Nice work, I like the simple flower-outline black & white form (the right-hand one).<br />
:Please note, by the way, that the "Free Expression" term has been [[Talk:Definition/Unstable#Pushing_to_1.0|dropped]] because it was too ambiguous, so we only need a "Free Content" logo. I'll update the contest description to reflect this.<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 23:35, 2 September 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logo_contest&diff=2235Logo contest2006-09-02T21:35:48Z<p>Antoine: /* Dan Lockton's logos */</p>
<hr />
<div>We need two separate logos, a "Free Content" logo and a "Free Expression" logo, that can be attached to works covered by licenses which meet the conditions defined in the [[Definition|Free Content and Expression Definition]]. Each of these logos should consist of:<br />
<br />
* a symbol or sign that is the same for both logos (minor variations allowed)<br />
* a label, i.e. "Free Content" or "Free Expression"<br />
<br />
Logos '''must''' have a vector graphics source (SVG preferred), but '''must''' be uploaded in a bitmap format (transparent PNG preferred). A good, free software vector graphics application which can handle SVG and PNG exports is [http://www.inkscape.org/ inkscape]. The dimensions are up to you as long as the images scale well. In order for your logo to be used, the logo itself must be free content with a reduced attribution requirement, but we can work this out with you once we have picked your logo.<br />
<br />
To participate, [[Special:Userlogin|create an account]] and [[Special:Upload|upload your logos]]. A deadline will be announced once we have a better feel for how many submissions to expect. The [[moderators]] act as a jury.<br />
<br />
Why participate? Your logo may end up being used on millions of works large and small, giving you exposition and recognition. You will be fully acknowledged on this website as the artist. We may also announce prizes during the course of the contest.<br />
<br />
Some advice and ideas:<br />
* Don't make it too complex. See the Wikipedia article [[w:logo|logo]] for some information on what makes a good logo.<br />
* Since "Free Expression" is meant to be used primarily for artistic works, it may be a good idea to make this particular logo slightly more playful.<br />
* It's all about works being used freely, merged, copied, changed, and so on. A visual metaphor that reflects this may make the most sense.<br />
<br />
If you are confused by the wiki process, feel free to e-mail Erik at <tt>moeller AT scireview DOT de</tt>, and he will take care of things.<br />
<br />
== New Creative Commons Logos ==<br />
<br />
Please, have a look at new logos proposed for CC. They are not official CC logos (yet) [http://x.narya.net/static/terry/cc_colors.png but may be in a future] [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 14:59, 8 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Current submissions ==<br />
===Swirly===<br />
"Swirly" by Erik Möller, color & b&w, available as SVG. I'm using the text "free culture" for now as a placeholder until we've decided on a final name for the definition. This probably has similarities to lots of existing logos due to its simplicity, but I feel that freedom is best defined visually through simple forms and shapes. The blue and green represent Sky and Earth, respectively, to indicate that this is a global movement; the open shapes are somewhat informed by the copyright "C", which is, in a way, subverted to express fluidity and constant change. The soft pink subtitle is meant to complete the three primary colors, red, green and blue, from which all other colors can be additively created. The shapes are also meant to be somewhat reminiscent of a [[w:bass clef|bass clef]].--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 18:15, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Swirly-logo-black.png|150px|]] [[Image:Swirly-logo-color.png|150px|]]<br />
<br />
:I like this design, but it doesn't work in small sizes. <br />
<br />
:16px: [[Image:Swirly-logo-black.png|16px|]] [[Image:Swirly-logo-color.png|16px|]]<br />
:32px: [[Image:Swirly-logo-black.png|32px|]] [[Image:Swirly-logo-color.png|32px|]]<br />
<br />
:[[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]]<br />
<br />
:: True. Could be made to work by making it a bit bolder, though I do prefer Marc's design below to my own.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 00:09, 25 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
===Yin Yang===<br />
"Yin Yang" by Bernhard Schillo. The shape of the logo is one half of the yin and yang symbol. I believe, this is a good basis for this logo, cause it symbolizes contradictions, which generate reality. In this case the "C" (for Culture) coexists with the "uncultured" nature. Or another possible connotation: free culture and not free culture. Human culture of property can't exist without the "seed" of free culture contained in itself and without a strong free culture on the opposition. The forces have to work together. <br />
The Logo also reminds to the Copyright-Logo. But the circle around the "C" is not a circle. The shape indicates, that something is given back. <br />
<br />
The logo should be elaborated if used. These are just my first ideas and drafts. I will think about it again when the discussion about the name is finished. And i hope, my english is understandable :)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_signet.png|Free_culture_logo_signet.png]] <br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_var.png|Free_culture_logo_var.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free Content Logo ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free3.png|left|Logo|thumb]][[Image:Freex.png|left|Logo|thumb]][[Image:glob.png|left|Logo|thumb]]<br />
<br />
<br clear="both"><br />
<br />
== Marc Falzon's logo ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|left|Free content (01), by Marc Falzon - full size]]<br />
Here is another logo proposal to illustrate the Free content idea : I made it with Inkscape, so the SVG source file is available.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--typ.png|right|Alternative fonts for logo Free content (01)]]<br />
<br />
The rings - using the universal colors of the rainbow - represent some pieces of content (''free'' content illustrated by the "open" part) intertwined. For the label, I also provide some alternative fonts : the jury is free to choose another one in this list to replace the original font.<br />
<br />
A "wiki logo" size version of my logo : [[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--wikilogo.png|Free content (01), by Marc Falzon - wiki logo size]]<br />
<br />
Then a "browser-icon" size, for use as ''favicon'' : [[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--favicon.png|Free content (01), by Marc Falzon - favicon size]]<br />
<br />
...hope you'll like it ! :-)<br />
<br />
<br clear="both"><br />
<br />
: I love it! This is definitely the nicest one so far. From the fonts, I think I prefer the third one from the top. However, we should make sure that the fonts we use are available under free licenses. Could you do a grayscale version of the logo part so we know if it's suitable for print?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 00:08, 25 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
'''This logo is not original.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Beautiful. It remembers to me pac-man:<br />
http://web.candyland.cx/~bmfrankl/xlight/ftp/samples/pics/pac-man/pac-man.jpg<br />
--[[User:Telemaco|Telemaco]] 19:24, 2 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free Expression ==<br />
<br />
This is a rough draft of an idea for a 'freedom of expression' logo by Mark Clements (registered as HappyDog). A better paint-palette shape would be nice, and maybe a photographic image rather than the basic vector image I have used here. In fact, having said that I uploaded a quick mock-up with a photographic 'cloud' image. Not great, but any image could be used if this was thought to be a good direction to go in. --[[User:HappyDog|Mark Clements (HappyDog)]] 02:35, 6 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom of Expression.png]] [[Image:Freedom of Expression - clouds.png]]<br />
<br />
: This is pretty, though perhaps a little too strong visually. I'd prefer something more abstract which can be used equally well for art, music, scientific data, encyclopedic articles, and so on.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]]<br />
<br />
::I like the "yin yang" proposal above very much. Perhaps it is a little too naked right now, but it can probably be elaborated upon by a skilled person (perhaps the author himself) ;-)) I think the basic graphical concept is simple, clear and rather adequate. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:12, 14 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Telemaco's Logos ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:logo59.png|left|Logo|thumb]] [[Image:logo59fi.png|left|Logo|]]<br />
<br />
Butterfly FC.<br />
Black over white and white over black.<br />
No problem in gray scale.<br />
Very good over t-shirt.<br />
Simple and elegant.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br clear="both"><br />
<br />
== Copyleft ==<br />
<br />
This is a draft I did earlier this year. For more information on the design see http://haag.openkhm.de/132<br />
<br />
http://www.openkhm.de/resserver.php?blogId=3&resource=copyrightleft.gif<br />
<br />
From copy'''right''' to copy'''left'''<br />
<br />
http://www.openkhm.de/resserver.php?blogId=3&resource=transformation.gif<br />
<br />
I marked the compliances in Free Content and Free Expression ('''ee''') and took the resulting sign.<br />
<br />
http://www.openkhm.de/resserver.php?blogId=3&resource=free_locx.gif<br />
<br />
== FKey ==<br />
<br />
Start for this design was to break up the circle of usual copyright-sign via a '''F''' like freedom<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freekey_fc.gif]]<br />
<br />
I took the resulting form that resembles a key<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freekey_3.gif]]<br />
<br />
C for the Free Content Mark, X for Free Expression and the empty one for a general Freedom Defined logo<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freekey_gross.gif]]<br />
<br />
All logos can be combined with type...<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freekey_3-type.gif]]<br />
<br />
... and should also work in icon size<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freekey_xicon_weiss.gif ]] [[Image:Freekey_cicon_weiss.gif ]] [[Image:Freekey_xicon_schwarz.gif ]] [[Image:Freekey_cicon_schwarz.gif ]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Dan Lockton's logos ==<br />
<br />
My starting point is the observation that since the (C) mark is so universally known, the freedom marks ultimately need to be equally so. The (C) mark is also very easy for anyone to draw by hand and thus add to their work at the time of creation - again, the freedom mark needs to be equally easy to draw by hand (with distinct features which are memorable and recognisable even if imperfectly reproduced).<br />
<br />
It may be 'boring' but it would seem that an F in a circle fulfils these requirements well - but it is rather dull. There are also a number of company logos using a lower-case script f in a circle, and this could cause confusion. So, initially, I tried some stylised letter fs in a circle:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_1.png]]<br />
<br />
These still look rather corporate and not especially 'friendly'. Lower-case text is often perceived as friendlier and less authoritarian than capital letters, and actual fonts rather than heavily stylised letters also help give a more human feel to the logo. So I looked at a couple of the best-known Free/Open Source fonts, [http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=Gentium Gentium] and [http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ Bitstream Vera Sans] and played with the lower-case f from these fonts:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_2.png]]<br />
<br />
The logo using Bitstream looks more 'modern'/futuristic than the Gentium one, especially when matched with suitably dynamic, friendly colours:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_3.png]]<br />
<br />
However, given the strong literary component of the free culture movement, the serifed, more 'classic' Gentium f somehow seems more appropriate:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_4.png]]<br />
<br />
To distinguish between 'free content' and 'free expression', as mentioned in the intro to the contest, I considered simply using a warmer, more 'passionate' colour:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_5.png]]<br />
<br />
But it seemed as though something more was needed: a more distinctive, genuinely playful extension of the logo. Hence, the "Flowering of Creativity" concept developed:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_6.png]]<br />
<br />
There are many metaphors which work well when comparing free expression and free culture to a flower:<br />
<br />
- Free culture will lead to an enormous '''flowering of creativity''' around the world, a blossoming of rich content<br />
<br />
- The multiplicity of '''petals''' symbolises the '''many people and groups''' around the world who together make up the value of the freedom movement<br />
<br />
- The flower is open, just as works available freely are '''open to all'''<br />
<br />
- The 'garden' of free culture is a fertile one: so many projects and works can '''grow from the work of others''' - pretty much the purpose of the GPL<br />
<br />
Lastly - note the black & white versions of the flower logo: easy to draw quickly by hand (particularly the right-hand one) to add to any document, artwork, etc to show it's being freely licensed. The variations in how the flower is drawn, from exaggeratedly bubbly petals to precisely geometric, again demonstrate the diversity of the free culture movement, and will allow a playful personality to be injected with every hand drawing of the logo - truly free expression! The logo itself becomes a triumphant doodle symbolising peaceful rejection of the copyright hegemony.<br />
<br />
Finally, then, these are my favoured versions of the logos:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_7.png]]<br />
<br />
The simple 'f' in a circle illustrates free content and perhaps the movement generally; the flower version explicitly emphasises freedom of expression. The colours are only a suggestion! --[[User:Dan Lockton|Dan Lockton]] 18:34, 2 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Nice work, I like the simple flower-outline black & white form (the right-hand one).<br />
:Please note, by the way, that the "Free Expression" term has been [[Talk:Definition/Unstable#Pushing_to_1.0|dropped]] because it was too ambiguous, so we only need a "Free Content" logo. I'll update the contest description to reflect this.<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 23:35, 2 September 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2220Definition/Unstable2006-08-24T15:09:51Z<p>Antoine: /* Allowed requirements and restrictions */ minor change in wording</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Global communication networks have made it possible for hundreds of millions of human beings to have the ability to access, modify, author, publish and distribute artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents; in short: anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits. In many cases, however, we find that copyright laws, which restrict the use of a work for decades even beyond the author's death, impede cultural and scientific progress. Worse, new tools such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are invented to control the flow of information and eliminate freedoms that we have long taken for granted.<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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<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 />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. To the extent possible, they should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
In most countries, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright law or by similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>. Under all those regimes, 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. Only very limited freedoms are granted to others unless authors choose to explicitly relinquish some or all of these powers. To do so, authors can explicitly release their work into the public domain (no copyright)<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>, or can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as ''[[w:license|licenses]]'' to grant, retain or qualify their exclusive rights.<br />
<br />
It is the goal of this definition to precisely define the ''essential freedoms'', and to provide guidelines by which existing licenses and works can be certified as meeting this definition.<br />
<br />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" 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, 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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain ''optional restrictions'' on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These restrictions are described below.<br />
<br />
Apart from these allowed restrictions, the license ''must not'' include clauses that limit essential freedoms. Especially, ''it must not specify any usage restrictions'' (such as prohibiting commercial use of the work, restricting use depending on political context, etc.).<br />
<br />
==== Attribution of authors ====<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
==== Transmission of freedoms ====<br />
<br />
The license may include a clause, often called ''copyleft'' or ''share-alike'', which ensures that derivative works themselves remain free works. To this effect, it can for example require that all derivative works are made available under the same free license as the original.<br />
<br />
==== Protection of freedoms ====<br />
<br />
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: for example, access to ''source code'', or prohibition of ''technical measures'' restricting essential freedoms.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work ''must'' be covered by a free content 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-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. We hereafter list the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free content:<br />
<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of other people's rights:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship. Local regimes may differ in important ways from one another, especially on the question of moral rights (see note above). However, those regimes agree on excluding the public from almost all important rights related to works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=2219Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-08-23T13:25:01Z<p>Antoine: /* Alternate preamble */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<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 />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=2218Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-08-23T13:10:44Z<p>Antoine: Alternate preamble</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Global communication networks make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Several movements have developed to give strength and structure to these intuitive practices, by building communities upon mutually accepted values.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, will find they have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<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 />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=2217Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-08-22T13:49:56Z<p>Antoine: More changes</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2216Definition/Unstable2006-08-22T13:34:08Z<p>Antoine: /* Allowed requirements and restrictions */ rephrasing allowed restrictions (removing duplicate definition of transparent copies / free format, etc.)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Global communication networks have made it possible for hundreds of millions of human beings to have the ability to access, modify, author, publish and distribute artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents; in short: anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits. In many cases, however, we find that copyright laws, which restrict the use of a work for decades even beyond the author's death, impede cultural and scientific progress. Worse, new tools such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are invented to control the flow of information and eliminate freedoms that we have long taken for granted.<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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<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 />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. To the extent possible, they should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
In most countries, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright law or by similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>. Under all those regimes, 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. Only very limited freedoms are granted to others unless authors choose to explicitly relinquish some or all of these powers. To do so, authors can explicitly release their work into the public domain (no copyright)<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>, or can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as ''[[w:license|licenses]]'' to grant, retain or qualify their exclusive rights.<br />
<br />
It is the goal of this definition to precisely define the ''essential freedoms'', and to provide guidelines by which existing licenses and works can be certified as meeting this definition.<br />
<br />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" 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, 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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain ''optional restrictions'' on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These restrictions are described below.<br />
<br />
Apart from these allowed restrictions, the license ''must not'' include other clauses that limit essential freedoms. Especially, ''it must not specify any usage restrictions'' (such as prohibiting commercial use of the work, or restricting use depending on political context).<br />
<br />
==== Attribution of authors ====<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
==== Transmission of freedoms ====<br />
<br />
The license may include a clause, often called ''copyleft'' or ''share-alike'', which ensures that derivative works themselves remain free works. To this effect, it can for example require that all derivative works are made available under the same free license as the original.<br />
<br />
==== Protection of freedoms ====<br />
<br />
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: for example, access to ''source code'', or prohibition of ''technical measures'' restricting essential freedoms.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work ''must'' be covered by a free content 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-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. We hereafter list the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free content:<br />
<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of other people's rights:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship. Local regimes may differ in important ways from one another, especially on the question of moral rights (see note above). However, those regimes agree on excluding the public from almost all important rights related to works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2215Definition/Unstable2006-08-22T13:03:18Z<p>Antoine: /* Defining free licenses */ typography (subsection nesting)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Global communication networks have made it possible for hundreds of millions of human beings to have the ability to access, modify, author, publish and distribute artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents; in short: anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits. In many cases, however, we find that copyright laws, which restrict the use of a work for decades even beyond the author's death, impede cultural and scientific progress. Worse, new tools such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are invented to control the flow of information and eliminate freedoms that we have long taken for granted.<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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<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 />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. To the extent possible, they should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
In most countries, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright law or by similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>. Under all those regimes, 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. Only very limited freedoms are granted to others unless authors choose to explicitly relinquish some or all of these powers. To do so, authors can explicitly release their work into the public domain (no copyright)<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>, or can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as ''[[w:license|licenses]]'' to grant, retain or qualify their exclusive rights.<br />
<br />
It is the goal of this definition to precisely define the ''essential freedoms'', and to provide guidelines by which existing licenses and works can be certified as meeting this definition.<br />
<br />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" 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, 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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These are described below.<br />
<br />
==== Attribution ====<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
==== Protection of freedoms ====<br />
<br />
The license ''may'' include clauses that strive to protect the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''transparent copies:''' a clause requiring all copies of the work to be in a transparent file format (documented and not encumbered by patents) which allows the work to be freely used in perpetuity<br />
* '''copyleft or "share-alike":''' a clause requiring that derivative works are entirely made available under a license which meets this definition<br />
* '''free from technical restrictions:''' a clause prohibiting the use of technical measures designed to prevent individuals to whom the work is distributed from exercising any of the freedoms described above<br />
<br />
The license ''may not'' include clauses that strive to limit the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''usage restrictions''': the license must not limit the licensee's actions beyond those which may have a plausible and direct impact on the essential freedoms of the work or its derivatives. Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work ''must'' be covered by a free content 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-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. We hereafter list the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free content:<br />
<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of other people's rights:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship. Local regimes may differ in important ways from one another, especially on the question of moral rights (see note above). However, those regimes agree on excluding the public from almost all important rights related to works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2214Definition/Unstable2006-08-22T12:43:56Z<p>Antoine: merging two paragraphs (removing stuff from the preamble)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Global communication networks have made it possible for hundreds of millions of human beings to have the ability to access, modify, author, publish and distribute artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents; in short: anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits. In many cases, however, we find that copyright laws, which restrict the use of a work for decades even beyond the author's death, impede cultural and scientific progress. Worse, new tools such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are invented to control the flow of information and eliminate freedoms that we have long taken for granted.<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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<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 />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. To the extent possible, they should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
In most countries, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright law or by similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>. Under all those regimes, 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. Only very limited freedoms are granted to others unless authors choose to explicitly relinquish some or all of these powers. To do so, authors can explicitly release their work into the public domain (no copyright)<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>, or can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as ''[[w:license|licenses]]'' to grant, retain or qualify their exclusive rights.<br />
<br />
It is the goal of this definition to precisely define the ''essential freedoms'', and to provide guidelines by which existing licenses and works can be certified as meeting this definition.<br />
<br />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" 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, 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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These are described below.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
=== Protection of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
The license ''may'' include clauses that strive to protect the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''transparent copies:''' a clause requiring all copies of the work to be in a transparent file format (documented and not encumbered by patents) which allows the work to be freely used in perpetuity<br />
* '''copyleft or "share-alike":''' a clause requiring that derivative works are entirely made available under a license which meets this definition<br />
* '''free from technical restrictions:''' a clause prohibiting the use of technical measures designed to prevent individuals to whom the work is distributed from exercising any of the freedoms described above<br />
<br />
The license ''may not'' include clauses that strive to limit the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''usage restrictions''': the license must not limit the licensee's actions beyond those which may have a plausible and direct impact on the essential freedoms of the work or its derivatives. Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work ''must'' be covered by a free content 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-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. We hereafter list the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free content:<br />
<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of other people's rights:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship. Local regimes may differ in important ways from one another, especially on the question of moral rights (see note above). However, those regimes agree on excluding the public from almost all important rights related to works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=2213Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-08-22T12:31:57Z<p>Antoine: Altruism or not</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2212Definition/Unstable2006-08-22T12:12:31Z<p>Antoine: /* Preamble */ improving typography</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Global communication networks have made it possible for hundreds of millions of human beings to have the ability to access, modify, author, publish and distribute artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents; in short: anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits. In many cases, however, we find that copyright laws, which restrict the use of a work for decades even beyond the author's death, impede cultural and scientific progress. Worse, new tools such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are invented to control the flow of information and eliminate freedoms that we have long taken for granted.<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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<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 />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. To the extent possible, they should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
In most countries, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright law or by similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>. Under all those regimes, 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. Only very limited freedoms are granted to others unless authors choose to explicitly relinquish some or all of these powers. To do so, authors can explicitly release their work into the public domain (no copyright)<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>, or can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as ''[[w:license|licenses]]'' to grant, retain or qualify their exclusive rights.<br />
<br />
Being in the public domain, under a ''free license'' or otherwise legally unimpeded in the sense described above is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a work to be free. Indeed, a work may be non-free in other ways: it may only be provided in a form that cannot be easily modified, it may be given in a file format that is covered by patents or other legal or practical restrictions, it may violate basic rights of other people. Therefore, this definition seeks to also define what additional conditions a ''work'' must meet to be considered free.<br />
<br />
It is the goal of this definition to precisely define the ''essential freedoms'', and to provide guidelines by which existing licenses and works can be certified as meeting this definition.<br />
<br />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" 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, 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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These are described below.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
=== Protection of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
The license ''may'' include clauses that strive to protect the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''transparent copies:''' a clause requiring all copies of the work to be in a transparent file format (documented and not encumbered by patents) which allows the work to be freely used in perpetuity<br />
* '''copyleft or "share-alike":''' a clause requiring that derivative works are entirely made available under a license which meets this definition<br />
* '''free from technical restrictions:''' a clause prohibiting the use of technical measures designed to prevent individuals to whom the work is distributed from exercising any of the freedoms described above<br />
<br />
The license ''may not'' include clauses that strive to limit the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''usage restrictions''': the license must not limit the licensee's actions beyond those which may have a plausible and direct impact on the essential freedoms of the work or its derivatives. Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work must be covered by a free content license, or its legal status (such as the public domain, or national copyright exemptions granted on government-produced works) must otherwise provide the same basic freedoms enumerated above. Even when covered by a free license, a license must meet the following conditions in order to be considered free content:<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of rights of others:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship. Local regimes may differ in important ways from one another, especially on the question of moral rights (see note above). However, those regimes agree on excluding the public from almost all important rights related to works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2211Definition/Unstable2006-08-22T12:06:34Z<p>Antoine: /* Preamble */ simplification by removing unnecessary details</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Global communication networks have made it possible for hundreds of millions of human beings to have the ability to access, modify, author, publish and distribute artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents; in short: anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits. In many cases, however, we find that copyright laws, which restrict the use of a work for decades even beyond the author's death, impede cultural and scientific progress. Worse, new tools such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are invented to control the flow of information and eliminate freedoms that we have long taken for granted.<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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free, and by "freedom" we mean:<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 improvements or other changes, and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be free, these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. To the extent possible, they should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
In most countries, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright law or by similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>. Under all those regimes, 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. Only very limited freedoms are granted to others unless authors choose to explicitly relinquish some or all of these powers. To do so, authors can explicitly release their work into the public domain (no copyright)<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>, or can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as ''[[w:license|licenses]]'' to grant, retain or qualify their exclusive rights.<br />
<br />
Being in the public domain, under a free license or otherwise legally unimpeded in the sense described above is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a work to be free. Indeed, a work may be non-free in other ways: it may only be provided in a form that cannot be easily modified, it may be given in a file format that is covered by patents or other legal or practical restrictions, it may violate basic rights of other people. Therefore, this definition seeks to also define what additional conditions a ''work'' must meet to be considered free.<br />
<br />
It is the goal of this definition to precisely define the essential freedoms, and to provide guidelines by which existing licenses and works can be certified as meeting this definition.<br />
<br />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" 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, 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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These are described below.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
=== Protection of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
The license ''may'' include clauses that strive to protect the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''transparent copies:''' a clause requiring all copies of the work to be in a transparent file format (documented and not encumbered by patents) which allows the work to be freely used in perpetuity<br />
* '''copyleft or "share-alike":''' a clause requiring that derivative works are entirely made available under a license which meets this definition<br />
* '''free from technical restrictions:''' a clause prohibiting the use of technical measures designed to prevent individuals to whom the work is distributed from exercising any of the freedoms described above<br />
<br />
The license ''may not'' include clauses that strive to limit the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''usage restrictions''': the license must not limit the licensee's actions beyond those which may have a plausible and direct impact on the essential freedoms of the work or its derivatives. Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work must be covered by a free content license, or its legal status (such as the public domain, or national copyright exemptions granted on government-produced works) must otherwise provide the same basic freedoms enumerated above. Even when covered by a free license, a license must meet the following conditions in order to be considered free content:<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of rights of others:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship. Local regimes may differ in important ways from one another, especially on the question of moral rights (see note above). However, those regimes agree on excluding the public from almost all important rights related to works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=2192Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-07-30T19:05:47Z<p>Antoine: /* Use of the term "Free" */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2190Definition/Unstable2006-07-30T09:12:47Z<p>Antoine: /* Defining free works */ typo</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Through global communication networks, hundreds of millions of human beings today have the ability to access, modify, author, publish and distribute artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents; in short: anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits. In many cases, however, we find that copyright laws, which restrict the use of a work for decades even beyond the author's death, impede cultural and scientific progress. Worse, new tools such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are invented to control the flow of information and eliminate freedoms that we have long taken for granted.<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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free, and by "freedom" we mean:<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 improvements or other changes, and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be free, these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. To the extent possible, they should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
In most countries, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright law or by similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>. Under all those regimes, 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. Only very limited freedoms are granted to others unless authors choose to explicitly relinquish some or all of these powers. To do so, authors can explicitly release their work into the public domain (no copyright)<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>, or can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as ''[[w:license|licenses]]'' to grant, retain or qualify their exclusive rights.<br />
<br />
Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above. For example, some popular licenses forbid the creation of derivative works, or the commercial use of a work. Some licenses are even more specific. They limit usage of the work to particular regions of the world, or to relative quantities of information. These cannot be called "free licenses," as no work can be truly called "free" unless it can be freely shared, freely modified, freely aggregated, freely combined, and freely provided through any channel. <br />
<br />
Works under licenses that prohibit essential freedoms stand separate from the body of works that is not impeded by these restrictions. They are philosophically and legally incompatible with the licensing options used by the growing movement that refers to its works as "free content." This definition defines what conditions a licensing agreement must meet so that the ''license'' can be considered free.<br />
<br />
Being in the public domain, under a free license or otherwise legally unimpeded in the sense described above is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a work to be free. It is not sufficient because a work may be unfree in other ways: It may only be provided in a form that cannot be easily modified, it may be given in a file format that is covered by patents or other legal or practical restrictions, it may violate the rights of others. Therefore, this definition seeks to also define what additional conditions a ''work'' must meet to be considered free.<br />
<br />
We believe that whenever the term "free" needs to be significantly qualified ("it is free, but you cannot .."), it can only mean "free" in the sense of "gratis, without cost". It can never mean that every essential freedom is present. It is the goal of this definition to precisely define the essential freedoms, and to provide guidelines by which existing licenses and works can be certified as meeting this definition.<br />
<br />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Recommended and required criteria ==<br />
<br />
This definition uses the terms ''may'', ''may not'' and ''must not'' in obvious ways to distinguish required and optional criteria for covered licenses. Importantly, it uses the term ''should'' where we recommend that licenses which do not meet the stated criteria should be amended. Later versions of this definition may make some of these criteria mandatory.<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" 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, 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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These are described below.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
=== Protection of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
The license ''may'' include clauses that strive to protect the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''transparent copies:''' a clause requiring all copies of the work to be in a transparent file format (documented and not encumbered by patents) which allows the work to be freely used in perpetuity<br />
* '''copyleft or "share-alike":''' a clause requiring that derivative works are entirely made available under a license which meets this definition<br />
* '''free from technical restrictions:''' a clause prohibiting the use of technical measures designed to prevent individuals to whom the work is distributed from exercising any of the freedoms described above<br />
<br />
The license ''may not'' include clauses that strive to limit the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''usage restrictions''': the license must not limit the licensee's actions beyond those which may have a plausible and direct impact on the essential freedoms of the work or its derivatives. Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work.<br />
<br />
=== Recommendations ===<br />
<br />
Authors of licenses ''should'' make an effort to gradually make licenses which share nearly equivalent philosophical roots and legal principles compatible with each other to ensure that works under these licenses can be combined and aggregated freely. This may be accomplished by altering the terms of the license (e.g. by removing a restriction which the other license does not have), or by adding migration clauses which allow the use of the licensed work under the now compatible license.<br />
<br />
When making copies of a work, the licensee ''should'' be allowed to refer to a resource pointer instead of being required to distribute the license text itself with each copy of the work. Similarly, the license ''should'' allow the author or authors to specify a resource pointer for the attribution of multiple authors of a work. This is to ensure that the attribution requirement for complex collaborative works does not become an impediment.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work must be covered by a free content license, or its legal status (such as the public domain, or national copyright exemptions granted on government-produced works) must otherwise provide the same basic freedoms enumerated above. Even when covered by a free license, a license must meet the following conditions in order to be considered free content:<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of rights of others:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship. Local regimes may differ in important ways from one another, especially on the question of moral rights (see note above). However, those regimes agree on excluding the public from almost all important rights related to works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Portal:Science&diff=2189Portal:Science2006-07-30T09:06:15Z<p>Antoine: given link is not officially free content</p>
<hr />
<div>{{portals}}</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Portal:News&diff=2188Portal:News2006-07-30T09:04:57Z<p>Antoine: None of the given links are officially free content</p>
<hr />
<div>{{portals}}</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Portal:Software&diff=2187Portal:Software2006-07-30T09:03:20Z<p>Antoine: /* Free Software directories and repositories */</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://developer.berlios.de/ Berlios.de], [http://gna.org/ Gna!], [http://tuxfamily.org/ TuxFamily].</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Portal:Software&diff=2186Portal:Software2006-07-30T08:59:15Z<p>Antoine: removing free software magazine, as it is not under a free license</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 />
* [http://developer.berlios.de/ Berlios.de] is a project hosting service for Open Source developers. Software projects hosted by berlios.de are all under an [http://www.opensource.org/ Open Source Initiative]-approved license.</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2185Definition/Unstable2006-07-30T08:36:55Z<p>Antoine: /* Essential freedoms */ rephrasing freedom to study (see discussion archives)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Through global communication networks, hundreds of millions of human beings today have the ability to access, modify, author, publish and distribute artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents; in short: anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits. In many cases, however, we find that copyright laws, which restrict the use of a work for decades even beyond the author's death, impede cultural and scientific progress. Worse, new tools such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are invented to control the flow of information and eliminate freedoms that we have long taken for granted.<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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free, and by "freedom" we mean:<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 improvements or other changes, and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be free, these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. To the extent possible, they should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
In most countries, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright law or by similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>. Under all those regimes, 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. Only very limited freedoms are granted to others unless authors choose to explicitly relinquish some or all of these powers. To do so, authors can explicitly release their work into the public domain (no copyright)<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>, or can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as ''[[w:license|licenses]]'' to grant, retain or qualify their exclusive rights.<br />
<br />
Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above. For example, some popular licenses forbid the creation of derivative works, or the commercial use of a work. Some licenses are even more specific. They limit usage of the work to particular regions of the world, or to relative quantities of information. These cannot be called "free licenses," as no work can be truly called "free" unless it can be freely shared, freely modified, freely aggregated, freely combined, and freely provided through any channel. <br />
<br />
Works under licenses that prohibit essential freedoms stand separate from the body of works that is not impeded by these restrictions. They are philosophically and legally incompatible with the licensing options used by the growing movement that refers to its works as "free content." This definition defines what conditions a licensing agreement must meet so that the ''license'' can be considered free.<br />
<br />
Being in the public domain, under a free license or otherwise legally unimpeded in the sense described above is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a work to be free. It is not sufficient because a work may be unfree in other ways: It may only be provided in a form that cannot be easily modified, it may be given in a file format that is covered by patents or other legal or practical restrictions, it may violate the rights of others. Therefore, this definition seeks to also define what additional conditions a ''work'' must meet to be considered free.<br />
<br />
We believe that whenever the term "free" needs to be significantly qualified ("it is free, but you cannot .."), it can only mean "free" in the sense of "gratis, without cost". It can never mean that every essential freedom is present. It is the goal of this definition to precisely define the essential freedoms, and to provide guidelines by which existing licenses and works can be certified as meeting this definition.<br />
<br />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Recommended and required criteria ==<br />
<br />
This definition uses the terms ''may'', ''may not'' and ''must not'' in obvious ways to distinguish required and optional criteria for covered licenses. Importantly, it uses the term ''should'' where we recommend that licenses which do not meet the stated criteria should be amended. Later versions of this definition may make some of these criteria mandatory.<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" 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, 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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These are described below.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
=== Protection of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
The license ''may'' include clauses that strive to protect the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''transparent copies:''' a clause requiring all copies of the work to be in a transparent file format (documented and not encumbered by patents) which allows the work to be freely used in perpetuity<br />
* '''copyleft or "share-alike":''' a clause requiring that derivative works are entirely made available under a license which meets this definition<br />
* '''free from technical restrictions:''' a clause prohibiting the use of technical measures designed to prevent individuals to whom the work is distributed from exercising any of the freedoms described above<br />
<br />
The license ''may not'' include clauses that strive to limit the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''usage restrictions''': the license must not limit the licensee's actions beyond those which may have a plausible and direct impact on the essential freedoms of the work or its derivatives. Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work.<br />
<br />
=== Recommendations ===<br />
<br />
Authors of licenses ''should'' make an effort to gradually make licenses which share nearly equivalent philosophical roots and legal principles compatible with each other to ensure that works under these licenses can be combined and aggregated freely. This may be accomplished by altering the terms of the license (e.g. by removing a restriction which the other license does not have), or by adding migration clauses which allow the use of the licensed work under the now compatible license.<br />
<br />
When making copies of a work, the licensee ''should'' be allowed to refer to a resource pointer instead of being required to distribute the license text itself with each copy of the work. Similarly, the license ''should'' allow the author or authors to specify a resource pointer for the attribution of multiple authors of a work. This is to ensure that the attribution requirement for complex collaborative works does not become an impediment.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work must be covered by a free content license, or its legal status (such as the public domain, or national copyright exemptions granted on government-produced works) must otherwise provide the same basic freedoms enumerated above. Even when covered by a free license, a license must meet the following conditions in order to be considered free content:<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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 patetented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of rights of others:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship. Local regimes may differ in important ways from one another, especially on the question of moral rights (see note above). However, those regimes agree on excluding the public from almost all important rights related to works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2184Definition/Unstable2006-07-30T08:23:56Z<p>Antoine: /* Essential freedoms */ freedom to use and perform</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Through global communication networks, hundreds of millions of human beings today have the ability to access, modify, author, publish and distribute artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents; in short: anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits. In many cases, however, we find that copyright laws, which restrict the use of a work for decades even beyond the author's death, impede cultural and scientific progress. Worse, new tools such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are invented to control the flow of information and eliminate freedoms that we have long taken for granted.<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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free, and by "freedom" we mean:<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 improvements or other changes, and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be free, these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. To the extent possible, they should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
In most countries, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright law or by similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>. Under all those regimes, 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. Only very limited freedoms are granted to others unless authors choose to explicitly relinquish some or all of these powers. To do so, authors can explicitly release their work into the public domain (no copyright)<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>, or can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as ''[[w:license|licenses]]'' to grant, retain or qualify their exclusive rights.<br />
<br />
Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above. For example, some popular licenses forbid the creation of derivative works, or the commercial use of a work. Some licenses are even more specific. They limit usage of the work to particular regions of the world, or to relative quantities of information. These cannot be called "free licenses," as no work can be truly called "free" unless it can be freely shared, freely modified, freely aggregated, freely combined, and freely provided through any channel. <br />
<br />
Works under licenses that prohibit essential freedoms stand separate from the body of works that is not impeded by these restrictions. They are philosophically and legally incompatible with the licensing options used by the growing movement that refers to its works as "free content." This definition defines what conditions a licensing agreement must meet so that the ''license'' can be considered free.<br />
<br />
Being in the public domain, under a free license or otherwise legally unimpeded in the sense described above is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a work to be free. It is not sufficient because a work may be unfree in other ways: It may only be provided in a form that cannot be easily modified, it may be given in a file format that is covered by patents or other legal or practical restrictions, it may violate the rights of others. Therefore, this definition seeks to also define what additional conditions a ''work'' must meet to be considered free.<br />
<br />
We believe that whenever the term "free" needs to be significantly qualified ("it is free, but you cannot .."), it can only mean "free" in the sense of "gratis, without cost". It can never mean that every essential freedom is present. It is the goal of this definition to precisely define the essential freedoms, and to provide guidelines by which existing licenses and works can be certified as meeting this definition.<br />
<br />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Recommended and required criteria ==<br />
<br />
This definition uses the terms ''may'', ''may not'' and ''must not'' in obvious ways to distinguish required and optional criteria for covered licenses. Importantly, it uses the term ''should'' where we recommend that licenses which do not meet the stated criteria should be amended. Later versions of this definition may make some of these criteria mandatory.<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" 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 and apply the information:''' The licensee must not be restricted by clauses which limit their right to examine, alter or apply the information. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering", and it may not limit the application of knowledge gained from the work in any way.<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 />
* '''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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These are described below.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
=== Protection of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
The license ''may'' include clauses that strive to protect the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''transparent copies:''' a clause requiring all copies of the work to be in a transparent file format (documented and not encumbered by patents) which allows the work to be freely used in perpetuity<br />
* '''copyleft or "share-alike":''' a clause requiring that derivative works are entirely made available under a license which meets this definition<br />
* '''free from technical restrictions:''' a clause prohibiting the use of technical measures designed to prevent individuals to whom the work is distributed from exercising any of the freedoms described above<br />
<br />
The license ''may not'' include clauses that strive to limit the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''usage restrictions''': the license must not limit the licensee's actions beyond those which may have a plausible and direct impact on the essential freedoms of the work or its derivatives. Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work.<br />
<br />
=== Recommendations ===<br />
<br />
Authors of licenses ''should'' make an effort to gradually make licenses which share nearly equivalent philosophical roots and legal principles compatible with each other to ensure that works under these licenses can be combined and aggregated freely. This may be accomplished by altering the terms of the license (e.g. by removing a restriction which the other license does not have), or by adding migration clauses which allow the use of the licensed work under the now compatible license.<br />
<br />
When making copies of a work, the licensee ''should'' be allowed to refer to a resource pointer instead of being required to distribute the license text itself with each copy of the work. Similarly, the license ''should'' allow the author or authors to specify a resource pointer for the attribution of multiple authors of a work. This is to ensure that the attribution requirement for complex collaborative works does not become an impediment.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work must be covered by a free content license, or its legal status (such as the public domain, or national copyright exemptions granted on government-produced works) must otherwise provide the same basic freedoms enumerated above. Even when covered by a free license, a license must meet the following conditions in order to be considered free content:<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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 patetented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of rights of others:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship. Local regimes may differ in important ways from one another, especially on the question of moral rights (see note above). However, those regimes agree on excluding the public from almost all important rights related to works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=2183Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-07-30T07:54:20Z<p>Antoine: Making it shorter</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2182Definition/Unstable2006-07-30T07:47:10Z<p>Antoine: /* Notes */ berne convention</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Through global communication networks, hundreds of millions of human beings today have the ability to access, modify, author, publish and distribute artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents; in short: anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits. In many cases, however, we find that copyright laws, which restrict the use of a work for decades even beyond the author's death, impede cultural and scientific progress. Worse, new tools such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are invented to control the flow of information and eliminate freedoms that we have long taken for granted.<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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free, and by "freedom" we mean:<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 improvements or other changes, and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be free, these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. To the extent possible, they should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
In most countries, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright law or by similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>. Under all those regimes, 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. Only very limited freedoms are granted to others unless authors choose to explicitly relinquish some or all of these powers. To do so, authors can explicitly release their work into the public domain (no copyright)<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>, or can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as ''[[w:license|licenses]]'' to grant, retain or qualify their exclusive rights.<br />
<br />
Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above. For example, some popular licenses forbid the creation of derivative works, or the commercial use of a work. Some licenses are even more specific. They limit usage of the work to particular regions of the world, or to relative quantities of information. These cannot be called "free licenses," as no work can be truly called "free" unless it can be freely shared, freely modified, freely aggregated, freely combined, and freely provided through any channel. <br />
<br />
Works under licenses that prohibit essential freedoms stand separate from the body of works that is not impeded by these restrictions. They are philosophically and legally incompatible with the licensing options used by the growing movement that refers to its works as "free content." This definition defines what conditions a licensing agreement must meet so that the ''license'' can be considered free.<br />
<br />
Being in the public domain, under a free license or otherwise legally unimpeded in the sense described above is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a work to be free. It is not sufficient because a work may be unfree in other ways: It may only be provided in a form that cannot be easily modified, it may be given in a file format that is covered by patents or other legal or practical restrictions, it may violate the rights of others. Therefore, this definition seeks to also define what additional conditions a ''work'' must meet to be considered free.<br />
<br />
We believe that whenever the term "free" needs to be significantly qualified ("it is free, but you cannot .."), it can only mean "free" in the sense of "gratis, without cost". It can never mean that every essential freedom is present. It is the goal of this definition to precisely define the essential freedoms, and to provide guidelines by which existing licenses and works can be certified as meeting this definition.<br />
<br />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Recommended and required criteria ==<br />
<br />
This definition uses the terms ''may'', ''may not'' and ''must not'' in obvious ways to distinguish required and optional criteria for covered licenses. Importantly, it uses the term ''should'' where we recommend that licenses which do not meet the stated criteria should be amended. Later versions of this definition may make some of these criteria mandatory.<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study and apply the information:''' The licensee must not be restricted by clauses which limit their right to examine, alter or apply the information. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering", and it may not limit the application of knowledge gained from the work in any way.<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 />
* '''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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These are described below.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
=== Protection of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
The license ''may'' include clauses that strive to protect the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''transparent copies:''' a clause requiring all copies of the work to be in a transparent file format (documented and not encumbered by patents) which allows the work to be freely used in perpetuity<br />
* '''copyleft or "share-alike":''' a clause requiring that derivative works are entirely made available under a license which meets this definition<br />
* '''free from technical restrictions:''' a clause prohibiting the use of technical measures designed to prevent individuals to whom the work is distributed from exercising any of the freedoms described above<br />
<br />
The license ''may not'' include clauses that strive to limit the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''usage restrictions''': the license must not limit the licensee's actions beyond those which may have a plausible and direct impact on the essential freedoms of the work or its derivatives. Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work.<br />
<br />
=== Recommendations ===<br />
<br />
Authors of licenses ''should'' make an effort to gradually make licenses which share nearly equivalent philosophical roots and legal principles compatible with each other to ensure that works under these licenses can be combined and aggregated freely. This may be accomplished by altering the terms of the license (e.g. by removing a restriction which the other license does not have), or by adding migration clauses which allow the use of the licensed work under the now compatible license.<br />
<br />
When making copies of a work, the licensee ''should'' be allowed to refer to a resource pointer instead of being required to distribute the license text itself with each copy of the work. Similarly, the license ''should'' allow the author or authors to specify a resource pointer for the attribution of multiple authors of a work. This is to ensure that the attribution requirement for complex collaborative works does not become an impediment.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work must be covered by a free content license, or its legal status (such as the public domain, or national copyright exemptions granted on government-produced works) must otherwise provide the same basic freedoms enumerated above. Even when covered by a free license, a license must meet the following conditions in order to be considered free content:<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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 patetented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of rights of others:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship. Local regimes may differ in important ways from one another, especially on the question of moral rights (see note above). However, those regimes agree on excluding the public from almost all important rights related to works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2181Definition/Unstable2006-07-30T07:42:45Z<p>Antoine: /* Preamble */ footnote number</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Through global communication networks, hundreds of millions of human beings today have the ability to access, modify, author, publish and distribute artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents; in short: anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits. In many cases, however, we find that copyright laws, which restrict the use of a work for decades even beyond the author's death, impede cultural and scientific progress. Worse, new tools such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are invented to control the flow of information and eliminate freedoms that we have long taken for granted.<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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free, and by "freedom" we mean:<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 improvements or other changes, and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be free, these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. To the extent possible, they should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
In most countries, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright law or by similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>. Under all those regimes, 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. Only very limited freedoms are granted to others unless authors choose to explicitly relinquish some or all of these powers. To do so, authors can explicitly release their work into the public domain (no copyright)<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>, or can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as ''[[w:license|licenses]]'' to grant, retain or qualify their exclusive rights.<br />
<br />
Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above. For example, some popular licenses forbid the creation of derivative works, or the commercial use of a work. Some licenses are even more specific. They limit usage of the work to particular regions of the world, or to relative quantities of information. These cannot be called "free licenses," as no work can be truly called "free" unless it can be freely shared, freely modified, freely aggregated, freely combined, and freely provided through any channel. <br />
<br />
Works under licenses that prohibit essential freedoms stand separate from the body of works that is not impeded by these restrictions. They are philosophically and legally incompatible with the licensing options used by the growing movement that refers to its works as "free content." This definition defines what conditions a licensing agreement must meet so that the ''license'' can be considered free.<br />
<br />
Being in the public domain, under a free license or otherwise legally unimpeded in the sense described above is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a work to be free. It is not sufficient because a work may be unfree in other ways: It may only be provided in a form that cannot be easily modified, it may be given in a file format that is covered by patents or other legal or practical restrictions, it may violate the rights of others. Therefore, this definition seeks to also define what additional conditions a ''work'' must meet to be considered free.<br />
<br />
We believe that whenever the term "free" needs to be significantly qualified ("it is free, but you cannot .."), it can only mean "free" in the sense of "gratis, without cost". It can never mean that every essential freedom is present. It is the goal of this definition to precisely define the essential freedoms, and to provide guidelines by which existing licenses and works can be certified as meeting this definition.<br />
<br />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Recommended and required criteria ==<br />
<br />
This definition uses the terms ''may'', ''may not'' and ''must not'' in obvious ways to distinguish required and optional criteria for covered licenses. Importantly, it uses the term ''should'' where we recommend that licenses which do not meet the stated criteria should be amended. Later versions of this definition may make some of these criteria mandatory.<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study and apply the information:''' The licensee must not be restricted by clauses which limit their right to examine, alter or apply the information. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering", and it may not limit the application of knowledge gained from the work in any way.<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 />
* '''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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These are described below.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
=== Protection of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
The license ''may'' include clauses that strive to protect the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''transparent copies:''' a clause requiring all copies of the work to be in a transparent file format (documented and not encumbered by patents) which allows the work to be freely used in perpetuity<br />
* '''copyleft or "share-alike":''' a clause requiring that derivative works are entirely made available under a license which meets this definition<br />
* '''free from technical restrictions:''' a clause prohibiting the use of technical measures designed to prevent individuals to whom the work is distributed from exercising any of the freedoms described above<br />
<br />
The license ''may not'' include clauses that strive to limit the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''usage restrictions''': the license must not limit the licensee's actions beyond those which may have a plausible and direct impact on the essential freedoms of the work or its derivatives. Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work.<br />
<br />
=== Recommendations ===<br />
<br />
Authors of licenses ''should'' make an effort to gradually make licenses which share nearly equivalent philosophical roots and legal principles compatible with each other to ensure that works under these licenses can be combined and aggregated freely. This may be accomplished by altering the terms of the license (e.g. by removing a restriction which the other license does not have), or by adding migration clauses which allow the use of the licensed work under the now compatible license.<br />
<br />
When making copies of a work, the licensee ''should'' be allowed to refer to a resource pointer instead of being required to distribute the license text itself with each copy of the work. Similarly, the license ''should'' allow the author or authors to specify a resource pointer for the attribution of multiple authors of a work. This is to ensure that the attribution requirement for complex collaborative works does not become an impediment.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work must be covered by a free content license, or its legal status (such as the public domain, or national copyright exemptions granted on government-produced works) must otherwise provide the same basic freedoms enumerated above. Even when covered by a free license, a license must meet the following conditions in order to be considered free content:<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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 patetented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of rights of others:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2180Definition/Unstable2006-07-30T07:42:23Z<p>Antoine: /* Notes */ berne convention</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Through global communication networks, hundreds of millions of human beings today have the ability to access, modify, author, publish and distribute artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents; in short: anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits. In many cases, however, we find that copyright laws, which restrict the use of a work for decades even beyond the author's death, impede cultural and scientific progress. Worse, new tools such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are invented to control the flow of information and eliminate freedoms that we have long taken for granted.<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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free, and by "freedom" we mean:<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 improvements or other changes, and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be free, these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. To the extent possible, they should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
In most countries, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright law or by similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|4]]</sup>. Under all those regimes, 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. Only very limited freedoms are granted to others unless authors choose to explicitly relinquish some or all of these powers. To do so, authors can explicitly release their work into the public domain (no copyright)<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>, or can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as ''[[w:license|licenses]]'' to grant, retain or qualify their exclusive rights.<br />
<br />
Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above. For example, some popular licenses forbid the creation of derivative works, or the commercial use of a work. Some licenses are even more specific. They limit usage of the work to particular regions of the world, or to relative quantities of information. These cannot be called "free licenses," as no work can be truly called "free" unless it can be freely shared, freely modified, freely aggregated, freely combined, and freely provided through any channel. <br />
<br />
Works under licenses that prohibit essential freedoms stand separate from the body of works that is not impeded by these restrictions. They are philosophically and legally incompatible with the licensing options used by the growing movement that refers to its works as "free content." This definition defines what conditions a licensing agreement must meet so that the ''license'' can be considered free.<br />
<br />
Being in the public domain, under a free license or otherwise legally unimpeded in the sense described above is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a work to be free. It is not sufficient because a work may be unfree in other ways: It may only be provided in a form that cannot be easily modified, it may be given in a file format that is covered by patents or other legal or practical restrictions, it may violate the rights of others. Therefore, this definition seeks to also define what additional conditions a ''work'' must meet to be considered free.<br />
<br />
We believe that whenever the term "free" needs to be significantly qualified ("it is free, but you cannot .."), it can only mean "free" in the sense of "gratis, without cost". It can never mean that every essential freedom is present. It is the goal of this definition to precisely define the essential freedoms, and to provide guidelines by which existing licenses and works can be certified as meeting this definition.<br />
<br />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Recommended and required criteria ==<br />
<br />
This definition uses the terms ''may'', ''may not'' and ''must not'' in obvious ways to distinguish required and optional criteria for covered licenses. Importantly, it uses the term ''should'' where we recommend that licenses which do not meet the stated criteria should be amended. Later versions of this definition may make some of these criteria mandatory.<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study and apply the information:''' The licensee must not be restricted by clauses which limit their right to examine, alter or apply the information. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering", and it may not limit the application of knowledge gained from the work in any way.<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 />
* '''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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These are described below.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
=== Protection of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
The license ''may'' include clauses that strive to protect the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''transparent copies:''' a clause requiring all copies of the work to be in a transparent file format (documented and not encumbered by patents) which allows the work to be freely used in perpetuity<br />
* '''copyleft or "share-alike":''' a clause requiring that derivative works are entirely made available under a license which meets this definition<br />
* '''free from technical restrictions:''' a clause prohibiting the use of technical measures designed to prevent individuals to whom the work is distributed from exercising any of the freedoms described above<br />
<br />
The license ''may not'' include clauses that strive to limit the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''usage restrictions''': the license must not limit the licensee's actions beyond those which may have a plausible and direct impact on the essential freedoms of the work or its derivatives. Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work.<br />
<br />
=== Recommendations ===<br />
<br />
Authors of licenses ''should'' make an effort to gradually make licenses which share nearly equivalent philosophical roots and legal principles compatible with each other to ensure that works under these licenses can be combined and aggregated freely. This may be accomplished by altering the terms of the license (e.g. by removing a restriction which the other license does not have), or by adding migration clauses which allow the use of the licensed work under the now compatible license.<br />
<br />
When making copies of a work, the licensee ''should'' be allowed to refer to a resource pointer instead of being required to distribute the license text itself with each copy of the work. Similarly, the license ''should'' allow the author or authors to specify a resource pointer for the attribution of multiple authors of a work. This is to ensure that the attribution requirement for complex collaborative works does not become an impediment.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work must be covered by a free content license, or its legal status (such as the public domain, or national copyright exemptions granted on government-produced works) must otherwise provide the same basic freedoms enumerated above. Even when covered by a free license, a license must meet the following conditions in order to be considered free content:<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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 patetented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of rights of others:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<br />
# [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 More than 150 countries] have agreed to the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], which is a document specifiying a framework for copyright-like protection of works of authorship.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2179Definition/Unstable2006-07-30T07:40:11Z<p>Antoine: /* Preamble */ copyright regimes</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines the term "Free Content" as any work or expression 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 ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Through global communication networks, hundreds of millions of human beings today have the ability to access, modify, author, publish and distribute artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents; in short: anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits. In many cases, however, we find that copyright laws, which restrict the use of a work for decades even beyond the author's death, impede cultural and scientific progress. Worse, new tools such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are invented to control the flow of information and eliminate freedoms that we have long taken for granted.<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 creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free, and by "freedom" we mean:<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 improvements or other changes, and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be free, these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. To the extent possible, they should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
In most countries, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright law or by similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|4]]</sup>. Under all those regimes, 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. Only very limited freedoms are granted to others unless authors choose to explicitly relinquish some or all of these powers. To do so, authors can explicitly release their work into the public domain (no copyright)<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>, or can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as ''[[w:license|licenses]]'' to grant, retain or qualify their exclusive rights.<br />
<br />
Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above. For example, some popular licenses forbid the creation of derivative works, or the commercial use of a work. Some licenses are even more specific. They limit usage of the work to particular regions of the world, or to relative quantities of information. These cannot be called "free licenses," as no work can be truly called "free" unless it can be freely shared, freely modified, freely aggregated, freely combined, and freely provided through any channel. <br />
<br />
Works under licenses that prohibit essential freedoms stand separate from the body of works that is not impeded by these restrictions. They are philosophically and legally incompatible with the licensing options used by the growing movement that refers to its works as "free content." This definition defines what conditions a licensing agreement must meet so that the ''license'' can be considered free.<br />
<br />
Being in the public domain, under a free license or otherwise legally unimpeded in the sense described above is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a work to be free. It is not sufficient because a work may be unfree in other ways: It may only be provided in a form that cannot be easily modified, it may be given in a file format that is covered by patents or other legal or practical restrictions, it may violate the rights of others. Therefore, this definition seeks to also define what additional conditions a ''work'' must meet to be considered free.<br />
<br />
We believe that whenever the term "free" needs to be significantly qualified ("it is free, but you cannot .."), it can only mean "free" in the sense of "gratis, without cost". It can never mean that every essential freedom is present. It is the goal of this definition to precisely define the essential freedoms, and to provide guidelines by which existing licenses and works can be certified as meeting this definition.<br />
<br />
== Naming freedom ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Free Content Definition'', and when describing licenses or works, we encourage you to use the term "Free Content" and the associated logo. Please be aware that the Free Content Definition is ''not'' a license, and for your work to be free, you should either release it into the public domain, or use one of the free content [[licenses]]. If you dislike the term "Free Content", the following more specific terms are used in similar ways:<br />
* Free Software (cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition])<br />
* Open Source (cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software)<br />
* Open Knowledge (cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition])<br />
* Free Art (there is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition)<br />
<br />
We discourage you from using the following terms, unless you want to be deliberately vague and inclusive:<br />
* Open Content - has no clear definition and is often used to refer to licenses that prohibit commercial use, modifications, etc.<br />
* Open Access - has competing definitions and competing uses, some of which prohibit commercial use, and is often used to simply refer to scientific material which is "available on the web"<br />
* Free Culture - while an attempt has been made to define this term in the spirit of this definition, it is generally used to refer broadly to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws<br />
<br />
== Recommended and required criteria ==<br />
<br />
This definition uses the terms ''may'', ''may not'' and ''must not'' in obvious ways to distinguish required and optional criteria for covered licenses. Importantly, it uses the term ''should'' where we recommend that licenses which do not meet the stated criteria should be amended. Later versions of this definition may make some of these criteria mandatory.<br />
<br />
== Defining free licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are agreements through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Content 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 to national copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study and apply the information:''' The licensee must not be restricted by clauses which limit their right to examine, alter or apply the information. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering", and it may not limit the application of knowledge gained from the work in any way.<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 />
* '''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 />
=== Allowed requirements and restrictions ===<br />
<br />
There are certain restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede on the essential freedoms enumerated above. These are described below.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
=== Protection of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
The license ''may'' include clauses that strive to protect the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''transparent copies:''' a clause requiring all copies of the work to be in a transparent file format (documented and not encumbered by patents) which allows the work to be freely used in perpetuity<br />
* '''copyleft or "share-alike":''' a clause requiring that derivative works are entirely made available under a license which meets this definition<br />
* '''free from technical restrictions:''' a clause prohibiting the use of technical measures designed to prevent individuals to whom the work is distributed from exercising any of the freedoms described above<br />
<br />
The license ''may not'' include clauses that strive to limit the [[#Essential freedoms|essential freedoms]] of the work, such as:<br />
* '''usage restrictions''': the license must not limit the licensee's actions beyond those which may have a plausible and direct impact on the essential freedoms of the work or its derivatives. Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work.<br />
<br />
=== Recommendations ===<br />
<br />
Authors of licenses ''should'' make an effort to gradually make licenses which share nearly equivalent philosophical roots and legal principles compatible with each other to ensure that works under these licenses can be combined and aggregated freely. This may be accomplished by altering the terms of the license (e.g. by removing a restriction which the other license does not have), or by adding migration clauses which allow the use of the licensed work under the now compatible license.<br />
<br />
When making copies of a work, the licensee ''should'' be allowed to refer to a resource pointer instead of being required to distribute the license text itself with each copy of the work. Similarly, the license ''should'' allow the author or authors to specify a resource pointer for the attribution of multiple authors of a work. This is to ensure that the attribution requirement for complex collaborative works does not become an impediment.<br />
<br />
== Defining free works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free content, a work must be covered by a free content license, or its legal status (such as the public domain, or national copyright exemptions granted on government-produced works) must otherwise provide the same basic freedoms enumerated above. Even when covered by a free license, a license must meet the following conditions in order to be considered free content:<br />
* '''preferred format:''' The work should, whenever possible<sup>[[#Notes|2]]</sup>, be made available (at least on request) in the form that is preferred for making modifications to it. For instance, for software, source code should be provided, because the binary code of a computer program is practically useless for modifying the software. For a computer-generated sound, image or film, the files that were used to create the final product (whichever form it may take) should be made available.<br />
* '''free 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 patetented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<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:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''no violations of rights of others:''' A free work must not infringe upon other people's rights -- however, when in doubt, a work should be considered free until shown otherwise. 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 free constitute a free 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 free and should not be called "free content."<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 free content works.<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
# Under some jurisdictions, notably some European countries, authors have inalienable [[w:moral rights|moral rights]] and cannot completely release their works into the [[w:public domain|public domain]]. If you believe that you have a right to put your own works in the public domain, regardless of what the law says, you can make a declaration of public domain status which contains a safeguard clause, such as: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."<br />
# Sometimes, the preferable form may be lost, or the author may have used an undesirable form to begin with. In other cases, the work may have been created in a non-free format which is ''practically'' preferable to a free format; in those cases, the freedom of the format takes precedence.<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. 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__</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logo_contest&diff=2156Logo contest2006-07-14T14:12:17Z<p>Antoine: /* Free Expression */</p>
<hr />
<div>We need two separate logos, a "Free Content" logo and a "Free Expression" logo, that can be attached to works covered by licenses which meet the conditions defined in the [[Definition|Free Content and Expression Definition]]. Each of these logos should consist of:<br />
<br />
* a symbol or sign that is the same for both logos (minor variations allowed)<br />
* a label, i.e. "Free Content" or "Free Expression"<br />
<br />
Logos '''must''' have a vector graphics source (SVG preferred), but '''must''' be uploaded in a bitmap format (transparent PNG preferred). A good, free software vector graphics application which can handle SVG and PNG exports is [http://www.inkscape.org/ inkscape]. The dimensions are up to you as long as the images scale well. In order for your logo to be used, the logo itself must be free content with a reduced attribution requirement, but we can work this out with you once we have picked your logo.<br />
<br />
To participate, [[Special:Userlogin|create an account]] and [[Special:Upload|upload your logos]]. A deadline will be announced once we have a better feel for how many submissions to expect. The [[moderators]] act as a jury.<br />
<br />
Why participate? Your logo may end up being used on millions of works large and small, giving you exposition and recognition. You will be fully acknowledged on this website as the artist. We may also announce prizes during the course of the contest.<br />
<br />
Some advice and ideas:<br />
* Don't make it too complex. See the Wikipedia article [[w:logo|logo]] for some information on what makes a good logo.<br />
* Since "Free Expression" is meant to be used primarily for artistic works, it may be a good idea to make this particular logo slightly more playful.<br />
* It's all about works being used freely, merged, copied, changed, and so on. A visual metaphor that reflects this may make the most sense.<br />
<br />
If you are confused by the wiki process, feel free to e-mail Erik at <tt>moeller AT scireview DOT de</tt>, and he will take care of things.<br />
<br />
== New Creative Commons Logos ==<br />
<br />
Please, have a look at new logos proposed for CC. They are not official CC logos (yet) [http://x.narya.net/static/terry/cc_colors.png but may be in a future] [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 14:59, 8 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Current submissions ==<br />
===Swirly===<br />
"Swirly" by Erik Möller, color & b&w, available as SVG. I'm using the text "free culture" for now as a placeholder until we've decided on a final name for the definition. This probably has similarities to lots of existing logos due to its simplicity, but I feel that freedom is best defined visually through simple forms and shapes. The blue and green represent Sky and Earth, respectively, to indicate that this is a global movement; the open shapes are somewhat informed by the copyright "C", which is, in a way, subverted to express fluidity and constant change. The soft pink subtitle is meant to complete the three primary colors, red, green and blue, from which all other colors can be additively created. The shapes are also meant to be somewhat reminiscent of a [[w:bass clef|bass clef]].--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 18:15, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Swirly-logo-black.png|150px|]] [[Image:Swirly-logo-color.png|150px|]]<br />
<br />
===Yin Yang===<br />
"Yin Yang" by Bernhard Schillo. The shape of the logo is one half of the yin and yang symbol. I believe, this is a good basis for this logo, cause it symbolizes contradictions, which generate reality. In this case the "C" (for Culture) coexists with the "uncultured" nature. Or another possible connotation: free culture and not free culture. Human culture of property can't exist without the "seed" of free culture contained in itself and without a strong free culture on the opposition. The forces have to work together. <br />
The Logo also reminds to the Copyright-Logo. But the circle around the "C" is not a circle. The shape indicates, that something is given back. <br />
<br />
The logo should be elaborated if used. These are just my first ideas and drafts. I will think about it again when the discussion about the name is finished. And i hope, my english is understandable :)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_signet.png|Free_culture_logo_signet.png]] <br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_var.png|Free_culture_logo_var.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free Content Logo ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free3.png|Logo|left|thumb]] [[Image:Freex.png|Logo|left|thumb]]<br />
[[Image:glob.png|Logo|left|thumb]]<br />
<br />
<br clear="both"><br />
<br />
== Free Expression ==<br />
<br />
This is a rough draft of an idea for a 'freedom of expression' logo by Mark Clements (registered as HappyDog). A better paint-palette shape would be nice, and maybe a photographic image rather than the basic vector image I have used here. In fact, having said that I uploaded a quick mock-up with a photographic 'cloud' image. Not great, but any image could be used if this was thought to be a good direction to go in. --[[User:HappyDog|Mark Clements (HappyDog)]] 02:35, 6 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Freedom of Expression.png]] [[Image:Freedom of Expression - clouds.png]]<br />
<br />
: This is pretty, though perhaps a little too strong visually. I'd prefer something more abstract which can be used equally well for art, music, scientific data, encyclopedic articles, and so on.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]]<br />
<br />
::I like the "yin yang" proposal above very much. Perhaps it is a little too naked right now, but it can probably be elaborated upon by a skilled person (perhaps the author himself) ;-)) I think the basic graphical concept is simple, clear and rather adequate. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:12, 14 July 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Licenses&diff=2127Talk:Licenses2006-06-14T20:54:35Z<p>Antoine: BSD advertising clause</p>
<hr />
<div>== An idea for a proper grid ==<br />
<br />
I suggest to send a questionnarie to the organizations that have published the licenses.<br />
Otherwise, we risk to get into trouble these organizations. The grid involves a responsability<br />
(it is not a simple definition).<br />
Antoine is the principal developer of the grid and he doesn't know well the licenses that he values.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 22:15, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:You can draft such a questionnaire, send it to the interested parties, collect answers and publish them verbatim somewhere (preferably on a separate page because it may be quite long).<br />
:But the responsibility argument is nonsense: there is no risk for third-party organizations to get sued for what we say here, since they don't officially take part. Also, it is obvious this page is not legal advice. As is said in the first paragraph: ''"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."'' I believe this disclaimer is clear enough, but you can suggest an alternative if you think it's not.<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:20, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::The problem is not legal, the problem is ethical. For example, you said that GFDL doesn't contain an anti-DRM clause and you wrote "no" in the grid. Without my providential correction, your words would still be see as true by many people. This is a negative fact for FSF. You don't understand this problem?? :-( We can draft a questionnaire '''together'''. I'm democratic, Antoine.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 15:41, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::It's a wiki and everyone can contribute. If you hadn't asked for the correction someone else would have suggested it later. <br />
:::You can make a first proposal for the questionnaire if you want (a separate page would certainly be more practical). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:53, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::I'm making it. Your criticism is distracted. :-)--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 18:48, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Also see: [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/LicenceEvaluation My License Page at Free Culture UK], which is an earlier effort towards license evaluation. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:48, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Against DRM 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
In my opinion, '''''Against DRM 1.0''''' is a free content license.<br />
<br />
*''This license is incompatible with any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts which are authorised or not authorised by licensor: this incompatibility causes the inapplicability of the license to the work.''<br />
<br />
*''Any breach of this license [...] will automatically retroactively void this license.''<br />
<br />
The sense is clear: '''licensor''' cannot license with ''Against DRM 1.0'' a work protected by DRM, because the license is inapplicable to works protected by DRM.<br />
'''Inapplicability of the license => no juridical effects.'''<br />
<br />
'''Licensee''' cannot protect the work or derivative works with DRM: if licensee protect the work or derivative works with DRM, the license will be '''void'''.<br />
<br />
Where is the vagueness? --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 02:32, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I find the "incompatible with .. acts which are authorised or not authorised" passage to be vague. Which acts, exactly, are we talking about? Could this mean that a licensor can say: "I disagree with your usage of encryption to conceal your personal data, as this is not an act which I have authorized?" Moreover, there is not even a reference to the work itself in the passage, so it's not clear to me that it only refers to "acts" which are related to the work. I think this passage needs to be explicit that we are talking about reducing the rights of ''others'' to the work through DRM.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Which acts, exactly, are we talking about?<br />
<br />
It's very simple: '''what does licensor authorize with the license?''' :-)<br />
<br />
''4. Grant of rights<br />
<br />
'''''Licensor authorizes licensee to exercise the following rights'':'''<br />
<br />
a. right of reproduction; ('''act of reproduction, act of multiplication...''')<br />
<br />
b. right of distribution; ('''act of distribution, act of diffusion...''') <br />
<br />
etc. etc. etc.<br />
<br />
The law (EUCD) say:<br />
''the expression ‘technological measures’ means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict '''acts [...] which are not authorised by the rightholder''' of any copyright or any right related to copyright.''<br />
<br />
Where is the vagueness?<br />
<br />
The sense is clear; these acts are: reproduction, distribution... and any<br />
copyright or any right related to copyright.<br />
--[[User:Tom|Tom]] 03:12, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I do agree with Erik, the wording is much too broad and vague. "acts which are authorised or not authorised" is completely unacceptable as it can mean anything (acts which are not authorized, by construction, are not part of license, in contrast to what you would like to let us think).<br />
<br />
::Instead "acts which are not authorized" are part of the license: these acts concern possible '''moral rights'''. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:By the way, 1) EUCD is not a law but an European directive 2) when the law is vague or dishonest, it is not helpful to base an argument on it. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::The law (EUCD is applied with national laws) is law: if you want legally oppose DRM, you must speak the language of the law. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::There is no point in trying to oppose ''what the law defines as DRM'' rather than ''what you find immoral''. About EUCD, what part of "European directive" don't you understand? Each country drafts its own transposition of EUCD and transpositions can be ''very different'' from the original. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:28, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::A license is a legal instrument and a legal instrument must be based on law. A license not based on law is not much effective and a license not much effective realizes nothing (moral principles, ideals etc). I think that you don't know directives' compulsoriness. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 20:26, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::Merely repeating yourself without reading what other people answered does not make you right... I guess this makes the thread dead, unless you want to bring fresh arguments onto the table (like on the cc-fr mailing-list, by the way). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:12, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::Other people? Who? I'm sorry but I'm not accustomed to uncivil tones of voice. You can speak with other people. :-) Thanks. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 11:08, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No need to use strong terms like "completely unacceptable", I'm sure the Against DRM license has good intentions which are very much in line with the goals of the definition. The question is, could it be clarified and improved? Tom, could you perhaps state what your position is in this matter - are you directly involved with the license? If so, we might be able to hook you up with some legal people from Creative Commons or Wikimedia.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 13:28, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: Against DRM is a new, redundant and minor license. It is not clear that it has been drafted by a legal professional. Both the FDL and the CC licenses have anti-DRM clauses. License proliferation is a bad thing, and there are already too many licenses with the CC license variants alone. Freedom Defined should not reproduce in Free Culture the damage that OSI are seeking to undo in Free Software. Promoting Against DRM is not a good idea, however good its intentions are. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:44, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I'm not involved with the license: I'm a jurist and I like this license for many reasons (what you call "vagueness", I call, in this case, "elasticity" and "knowledge of right").<br />
A license is a technical text that must be analyzed with a technical background.<br />
In my opinion, in this simple license nothing is casual. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:One might also refer to the [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00095.html debian-legal thread] about Against DRM 1.0. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Superficial discussion. :-) --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== GNU General Public License ==<br />
<br />
Any reason this license isn't included as a free content license? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: It is, under "all free software licenses".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Apologies, I missed that. Wouldn't it be better to explicitly list the GPL as many individuals use it as both a software and contennt license? - [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:36, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: Erm, it is, under "all free software licenses", which is followed by, "including the GNU GPL ..", but feel free to arrange the page differently.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 22:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I've tried to change the wording so as to make it explicit that the GPL is a proper free content license. Feel free to improve :) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:51, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== License characterization ==<br />
<br />
I think the current rough list is fine at the moment (the high priority task is to have a clear, precise, ethically correct, internationally secure Definition ;-)).<br />
However, in the future it will be useful to characterize the licenses more precisely according to a grid of criteria. Here are some criteria I suggest:<br />
<br />
=== Copyleft / non-copyleft ===<br />
<br />
Well, this is easy. Let's not forget about "agregation" however. For example, the GPL is a copyleft license which allows agregation with non-GPL works; the FAL is a copyleft license which does not allow agregation with non-FAL works (unless the resulting work is not considered a derived work under copyright law).<br />
<br />
=== Attribution / non-attribution ===<br />
<br />
Easy as well.<br />
<br />
=== Access to source code ===<br />
<br />
The GNU GPL mandates access to source code. The GFDL mentions transparent versions, which may (may not??) equate to source code.<br />
I don't know about any other free content licenses requiring access to source code; are there any?<br />
<br />
:The GFDL requires a source copy of the document, which must also be "Transparent" (that is, a simple, open standard format). The [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html Design Science License] also requires a source copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:57, 7 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
=== Internationalization scheme (translation / adaptation) ===<br />
<br />
This one is rarely mentioned. There are roughly two main internationalization schemes currently:<br />
* the GNU/FAL style: GNU licenses have only one legally binding version which is the original English one. The Free Art License is translated into several languages but translations are literal. The net effect is similar in both cases: the exact same concepts and clauses apply to everyone in the world.<br />
* the CC style: licenses are not just translated, they are ''adapted''. Consequently, licenses can be slightly different. For example, the French CC licenses have different wordings, warnings and restrictions compared to the American ones.<br />
<br />
It is not obvious whether both of these schemes make for safe international interoperability. However, it is important that the issue is explained.<br />
<br />
==Overhaul==<br />
<br />
Ok, so I've finally tried to give a clear structure to the page. I'm not sure to what level of detail we must go when talking about each license. In any case, help is welcome since the list is far from exhaustive.<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:10, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Er, 82.60.46.173, could you log in and tell who you are? It is easier to collaborate with human beings than with IP addresses ;)<br />
About your edits:<br />
* I would like to know why you removed the blurb about the Against-DRM License; it is an important question to know who wrote a license, so that we also understand their philosophy and their intents for the future; <br />
<br />
Movimento Costozero ( http://www.costozero.org/ ) is one of the most important association in Italy for digital freedoms ( http://www.costozero.org/wai/p10.html ). They invented Copyzero ( http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyzero ) and all their projects (for example, [http://www.scarichiamoli.org/main.php?page=presentazione "Scarichiamoli!" ], supported by Stallman, Lessig and Creative Commons Italy) aim at freedom.<br />
It's sufficient?<br>--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 01:27, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:The problem is not whether it's sufficient, it's why the Against DRM web site does not state any of this. A whois result is not a very interesting information since it doesn't indicate a statement of intent. I think it would be clearer if the Against DRM web site made a clear statement about its authorship, and also provided at least some insight into what philosophical values it wants to promote. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: The problem was that you did not know who wroted the license, his philosophy etc.. Now you know who wrote the license, his phylosophy etc. ... but the problem is that the Against DRM web site does not state any information about who wrote the license. :-) What can I say you?? Contact them! Speak with them. :-) --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:36, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::The problem is not for me, it's for potential users of the licence and for the general public. Inquiring in private is not practical and is not a sign that the authors are ''willing'' to provide information. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::This is your opinion. --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:06, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I don't understand the problem, Antoine: if an anonymous killer or Osama bin Laden publish a good free license, I use and suggest that license because it's a good free license. STOP. If Lessig publish a not free license ( this, for example: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/devnations/2.0/legalcode ), I don't use it. STOP. We must value only if a license is free. However, it seems that we know who writed that license and his philosophy... so I really don't understand the problem.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 10:26, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with you. A license (especially a ''copyleft license'') also often comes with an ecosystem, a community of authors sharing together some values. It is not an ''ad hominem'' argument as you try to make it look like. Licenses don't only have a legal value, they have a social and normative value. That's why the intent of the authors, the existence of a community are important. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::A license is a legal text. STOP. If Osama bin Laden publish a good legal text, I use it with any problem. However, there is a not secret organization behind that license. Where is the problem, Antoine? Why do you ignore this? --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 12:32, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::Again, the problem is explained above. I'm not interested in repeating myself...<br />
::::::As for ''"a license is a legal text. STOP."'', we'll have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:42, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::We have two different opinions: where is the problem? It seems that you want always the last word. :-) No problem! The last word is your!--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 20:19, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::Actually, I agree with Bob4 here. Of course a license is also accompanied by a community, but the community is nothing without a properly drafted and clear license. What is important is whether a license permits the publication of free content or not according to our definition, everything else is fluff. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:26, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::Yes, everything else is fluff. --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:06, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Who wrote Free Art License? <br><br />
You are Antoine Moreau?<br />
Can you tell me about your philosophy and your intents for the future?<br />
I'm sorry but I don't know you. You have an organization (without irony)?--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 01:32, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'm Antoine Pitrou, Antoine Moreau is a different person. As for the Free Art License, like most other licenses (including GNU and CC ones), its web site features detailed information about the history of the license, its intent, its authors, etc. (granted, many of those texts are in French) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Related rights==<br />
<br />
About "related rights", I don't agree that other licenses reserve them as you state. For example, the Free Art License is meant to grant them to the user (clause 2.1). Creative Commons licenses also grant them (clause 3c and 3d in by-sa 2.5).<br />
I welcome your help in solving these points. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:39, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
** ''2.1 FREEDOM TO COPY (OR OF REPRODUCTION)<br />
<br />
You have the right to copy this work of art for your personal use, for your friends or for any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose.''<br />
<br />
This is another thing: this is the freedom to copy the work (economic right)... all free content licenses grant this (the author/licensor grant this right).<br />
Related rights aren't rights of the author; they are rights of producers and executors.<br />
An example:<br />
I'm an author of a song and I release it under Free Art License.<br />
A producer takes my song and produces a CD with my song (new execution of my song): producer and executors '''acquire related rights over CD and registrations'''.<br />
So you can copy and distribute the work (the corpus mystichum). You can copy the registrations (the corpus mechanicum) for '''private use''' (private copy).<br />
But you cannot copy and distribute (etc, etc.) these certain registrations.<br />
<br />
Which is the solution?<br />
<br />
"Against DRM" say:<br />
<br />
'''... performances of the work, phonograms in which the work is fixed, broadcastings of the work must be released with a license that provides:<br><br />
a. the renunciation to exclusive exercise of rights referred to in the articles 4 and 5 (copyrights + related rights);<br>'''<br />
<br />
You can grab CD and share mp3 only if producer and executors expressly renounce to their exclusive rights (related rights)! Free Art License doesn't speak about related rights. Free Art License speak only about copyrights (the rights of the author).--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 01:27, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Did I say 2.1? I'm sorry, that should have read 2.2. Clause 2.2 of the FAL is "''2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)''". Freedom to interpret and freedom of representation covers related rights, at least as I understand it. Clause 2.3 of the FAL also talks about "''distribution (or representation) of the modified copy''".<br />
:Do you agree that CC licenses (at least by and by-sa) also grant related rights? (clauses 3c and 3d in [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode by-sa 2.5])<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Creative Commons License say:<br />
<br />
'''For the avoidance of doubt''', where the work is a musical composition:<br><br />
<br />
'''Performance Royalties''' Under Blanket Licenses.<br> Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a performance rights society (e.g. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), royalties for the public performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work.<br><br />
'''Mechanical Rights''' and Statutory Royalties.<br> Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a music rights agency or designated agent (e.g. Harry Fox Agency), royalties for any phonorecord You create from the Work ("cover version") and distribute, subject to the compulsory license created by 17 USC Section 115 of the US Copyright Act (or the equivalent in other jurisdictions).<br><br />
<br />
These royalties are possible only because some related rights (on corpus mechanicum) are exclusive.<br />
So CCPL expressly reserved related rights for music ('''for the avoidance of doubt''': infact, these related rights - as I said - are reserved also without this specification).''' --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:09, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:My English dictionary tells me the verb ''to waive'' means ''to renounce one's rights''. Therefore, the meaning of this clause is certainly the opposite of what you are saying: the licensor (not licensee) ''gives up his rights'' to collect royalties related to performance and the like.<br />
:Also, you said nothing about [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode clauses 3c and 3d] in by-sa. You can't ignore them, can you?<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:: Sorry I omitted the most important part (the final part):<br />
The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats. '''All rights not expressly granted by Licensor are hereby reserved.'''<br />
<br />
As in Free Art License, Licensor grant '''his''' rights (also related rights, but '''his''' related rights).<br />
Instead, '''License expressly reserves related rights that Licensor not granted''' (logically also related rights of '''other persons''': executors and procuders). It's very simple: you can consult Creative Commons about this.<br />
'''Only in "Against DRM" related rights are copylefted.'''<br />
<br />
This is the great invention of this license, imho.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 14:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:No doubt it's an interesting point, but it doesn't justify negating the fact that other licenses do provide related rights; the license list is not here to promote a particular license. I'll modify your last edit so as to give more useful information.<br />
:: Obviously other licenses grant '''licensor's related rights'''; my old grid said: ''Copylefted related rights'' -> ''NO/YES''. It was correct. Now the grid says: ''Related rights'' -> ''-/granted/ganted+copyleft''. It's correct too.<br />
<br />
I don't promote a particular license.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:21, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:By the way, when you significantly modify existing contents in a page, could you justify your edits somewhere in the discussion page? Thanks in advance. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:20, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:: Sure. --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:21, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Now I see Free Art License . :-)--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)<br />
<br />
You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions:<br><br />
- attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found,<br />
- specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,<br><br />
- specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the copies.<br><br />
<br />
Author/licensor is speaking about his rights: logically licensor give you, for example, the registration x of his song.<br />
He authorises you to copy registration x (because he is the owner of the related rights concerning registration x). But what about registration y executed by A and produced by B?<br />
The license doesn't bind executors and producers to the renunciation of their future related rights.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:28, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:The only interpretation you ''could'' draw (and I'm ''not'' convinced it's the proper one) is that the Free Art License is not copyleft when it comes to related rights. But it doesn't mean it "reserves" them since they are explicitly granted to the user.<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Only the related rights of the author (as executor and/or producer) are (logically) free (otherwise you cannot dowload that copy of the work!).<br />
::But any other related right is reserved (expressly reserved in CCPL).<br />
::Infact, I maked an example concerning future related rights of other persons.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 14:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I just had [http://www.april.org/wws/arc/copyleft_attitude/2006-05/msg00042.html an answer] from a lawyer who interprets section 3 of the FAL ("''3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK : All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents) into another work which would not be subject to this license.''") as concerning all possible uses of the work in subsequent work, including performances, recordings, etc. In that interpretation, related rights are copylefted under the FAL.<br />
::: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:56, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::: ''Les droits voisins ne portent pas atteinte aux droits des auteurs.'' Yes: I can reproduce, distribute, modify... the work (corpus mystichum) but I cannot distribute, reproduce, modify... for example, a certain registration (corpus mechanichum) of the work. It's simple. <br />
::::Many classical compositions are in public domain (so I can reproduce, distribute, modify... these compositions): but I cannot reproduce, distribute, modify... the version of Von Karajan produced by ''Deutsche grammophon''--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:46, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Carlos, I agree with your point about public domain, but it was not the argument I was making. Public domain is not transitive (copyleft) so it's no surprise that you can make proprietary works from public domain works. I quoted a specific clause ("''3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK''") which a lawyer thinks implies copyleft for related rights. I'm not claiming lawyers are always right (often they don't agree between themselves ;-)) but it's an interesting interpretation at least. What do you think about it?<br />
:::::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:25, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::''All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents) into '''another work''' which would not be subject to this license.''<br />
::::::An execution of the work is not another work! A certain registration of "work x" is not another work ("work y")!<br />
::::::Another work is a new work (work y) that contains work x (the original or derivate work released under the license).<br />
::::::So the incorporation does not concern related rights: the incorporation concerns copyrights on '''collective works'''. You can say this to the lawyer. :-)--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 13:13, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Why do you say an execution is not another work? It involves a creative effort from the executor (perfomer, etc.), which seems to make it qualify as a genuine work. If I take some existing lyrics and sing them, then I'm creating a work because singing qualifies as a creative action.<br />
<br />
::::::::'''No! This is a great, great error, Antoine''' The creativity of performers doesn't concern copyrights but related rights! When I play Sting, the author is Sting! Sting has the copyrights, I have related rights on that registration. Is it clear? And '''Sting cannot sell my performance of his song!''' Do you unerstand what I'm saying? If we don't know these basis, it's dangerous to work on this project.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 13:40, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand what you are saying, but I don't understand how it answers the question. The question is "why do you think performing a work does not create a separate or derived work?". The fact that the performer is not considered author the same way the original author is (the difference is in what economic rights are granted, AFAIK), does not mean the performance is not a work in itself. It seems to me that these are two separate questions. Aren't they?<br />
:::::::::If you want, I can try to put you in contact with the person I was talking about. Perhaps it is easier if you can discuss it together by e-mail?<br />
:::::::::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:04, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::::::He answered to you. A '''copyrightable work''' is object of '''immaterial property'''. A '''derivative work''' is not a certain material execution of '''the same work'''. A derivative work of a composition is a different composition, a composition based upon the original work but, for example, with a different melody in certain parts (or with a new arrangement... ).<br />
Two links for Antoine: <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work <br />
<br />
http://www.artslaw.org/DERIV.HTM <br />
<br />
(Antoine I suggest you to deepen your knowledges about copyright, related rights, derivative works etc etc). --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 15:09, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::An interpretation or performance is also ''the object of "immaterial property"'' (related rights are a form of "immaterial property"), so I suggest you find a more compelling argument.<br />
:::::::::::Also, let me remind you that the discussion is about a specific clause in the FAL. If you don't want to elaborate about the precise point which has been made, then please start a new discussion thread elsewhere. <br />
:::::::::::Oh, and please indent your comments properly, thx. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:29, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::::::::Ok, it's impossible to speak with you! :-(<br />
You said that derivative works are also the executions of a work. It is not true! If you don't believe to me, see that links! What means "indent your comments properly"??--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 15:38, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I did not say that. I said that, in my opinion, they should be considered ''either'' separate works ''or'' derivative work (please note the alternative). The point was that the FAL covers both (as for CC-BY-SA, I did not check).<br />
::::::::::::::Your opinion... ok ok. :-)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::(as for legal status of the performer, in French right the performer has moral rights on his performance - article [http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/VisuArticleCode;jsessionid=ExCJYN2Aj9HslC8Jihk2PYHxtCJ7m80Et0Mqi5sQyz5zkfzM2I2J!-495922973!iwsspad.legifrance.tours.ort.fr!10038!-1!2065712317!iwsspad3.legifrance.tours.ort.fr!10038!-1?commun=&code=&h0=CPROINTL.rcv&h1=1&h3=22 L212-2]).<br />
::::::::::::::Where I can read that, in France, a performance is a derivative work or a "separate work"? The creative work is the copyrightable work. See also: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travail_d%C3%A9riv%C3%A9 (in french: Un travail dérivé suppose une '''transformation''', '''modification''' ou '''adaptation''' qui constitue par elle même '''une création susceptible d'être protégée par le droit d'auteur'''. Only an author can make a copyrightable work or a copyrightable derivative work. A simple performer or a simple producer cannot make derivative works! Perhaps you don't know what juridically means the term '''work''' in the copyright laws. --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 16:13, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::Er, "copyright" does not exist in French right. There are "patrimonial rights", which belong to the author as well as to the performer (although in a different extent and with different modalities). So if you are looking to know whether performances and representations are "equivalent-copyrightable" in France, yes they are: they are the object of patrimonial rights.<br />
:::::::::::::::: You don't know what you say. :-/ '''You must study!''' Patrimonial rights aren't related rights! '''Also the terms are different! (La durée des droits patrimoniaux est de 70 ans à partir du 1er janvier suivant le décès de l'auteur. La durée de protection du droit voisin est de 50 ans à dater de la prestation. )''' In France you have '''Droits patrimoniaux''' (economic rights) and '''[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droits_voisins_du_droit_d%27auteur Droits voisins]''' (related rights). In France patrimonial rights regard the author, instead related rights regard: artistes interprètes, producteurs de phonogrammes et de vidéogrammes, entreprises de communication audiovisuelle. I'm tired Antoine, very tired. :-( --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 18:17, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::::You are wrong. ''Droits patrimoniaux'' do include ''droits voisins''. They are explicitly mentioned in [http://celog.fr/cpi/livre2.htm#c1 article 211-4] in the ''livre des droits voisins'' (''"La durée des droits patrimoniaux objet du présent titre (...)"'': this implies owners of related rights do enjoy patrimonial rights).<br />
:::::::::::::::::Les droits patrimoniaux objet du présent titre: LES DROITS VOISINS DU DROIT D'AUTEUR! There are patrimonial rights that regard author and (different) patrimonial rights that regard performers and producers: these patrimonial rights aren't author's rights! <br />
<br />
::::::::::::::::::That's exactly what I said two messages above, so perhaps you could have read it instead of trolling (''There are "patrimonial rights", which belong to the author as well as to the performer (although in a different extent and with different modalities''). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:10, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::::::::::::::I'm not a troll. I'm helping you to understand. Do you remember the question? '''What does french law say about derivative works?''' Does french law say that performances are derivative works?? No! Performances are simple executions of the work! Performances aren't new versions of the work! Only the authors make new versions of works. A performer is not an author!! And a producer makes a mechanical reproduction of a work: he's not an author! '''Work is only the object of a creation!''' An execution isn't a work but a reproduction of a work. An arrangement is a derivative work! See your law and stop FUD.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 19:24, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::::::::::::::: In all the world works and derivative works are works of an author. An author is not a performer or a producer. A big flame for a simple thing.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 15:41, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
http://celog.fr/cpi/sommaires/livre_1.htm Droit des auteurs are '''author's moral rights''' and '''author's patrimonial rights'''. Related rights (DROITS VOISINS DU DROIT D'AUTEU) aren't '''author's patrimonial rights'''. If you aren't inclined to know the truth, this is your problem.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 19:04, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::But talking about copyrightable/non-copyrightable is misleading in the context of French law. I'll try to ask the FAL authors if I meet them soon. Perhaps they can clarify in a future version of the license. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 17:01, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Carlos, if you hold the view that a performance is not a separate work, then the performance cannot be released under a separate license either (at least not without consent from the author).<br />
: What is a ''separate work''? This is not a juridical definition. ''Derivative work'' is a juridical definition. A performance is not a work! A performance is an '''execution of a work'''!<br />
''Against DRM'' says:<br />
''Derivative works, performances of the work, phonograms in which the work is fixed, broadcastings of the work must be released with a license that provides [...]''.<br />
Derivative works are a thing (new derivative creations of another author) and performances, phonograms etc are another thing (they aren't object of the action of an author)... and this is juridically correct. It seems that you don't understand this easy concept.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 20:54, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
So I still don't understand what the problem with FAL and CC BY-SA is (both are copyleft and grant related rights). Btw., Tomos also provided an answer for CC at the end of this section).<br />
: Copyleft only for copyrights, not for related rights. The copyleft clauses are different.<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, "Against DRM" applies to "works of the mind" which by your own reasoning don't include performances of a work: so it cannot be applied to a performance although clause 7 seems to mandate it.<br />
All in all, I'm still not convinced that this "copyleft related rights" is a real distinctive point. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:24, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
: The license treats copyrights and related rights in two different points: why do you continue to muddle the things? However, contact a jurist or a lawyer, I think that is the only solution in your case. :-) --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 20:54, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I would like you to ''answer'' the question above. As I said, I already contacted a lawyer on a mailing-list, who thinks there is no problem with the FAL's treatment of related rights.<br />
::Once again, there is also an answer by Tomos below which you still did not consider.<br />
::Since the Against DRM people are the only one raising this "related rights" concern, I believe it's not my task to clarify the matter. If you don't want to explain it, then please don't make further edits to the pages either, because I'm not willing to leave a distinction which doesn't seem shared by anybody but you.<br />
::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:12, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Do we know for a fact that the GPL and GNU FDL do not cover related rights? Aren't related works covered by derivative works language? Is this important in all jurisdictions? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:16, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
: Related rights does not regard software. So GPL (and the other software licenses) does not speak about related rights. It's normal. --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 20:32, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::I appreciate the response, but that isn't what I asked: Do we know for a fact that the GPL and GNU FDL do not cover related rights? Aren't related works covered by derivative works language? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:43, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::Copyrights and related rights are two different types of rights: a license regulates related rights only if the license expressly speaks about these specific rights. Otherwise the derivative works language regard only copyrights... and related rights are automatically reserved.<br />
For example, '''performance right''' allows music creators to claim royalties when their works are played. When you hear music (on the radio, TV, stage or in public), the composer usually receives royalties for this use.<br />
'''Mechanical right''' (the word "mechanical" indicates the use of a mechanical device to play the music) allows creators to claim royalties when their works are recorded. <br />
If the license does not speak about these rights (the juridical term is: related rights), the related rights owner keep the exclusive right to claim these royalties.<br />
In many countries related rights does not regard only royalties but also reproduction, modification, copy etc etc<br />
(for example, a performer can forbid to copy his execution of a song related under a free license that not speak about related rights). <br />
Attention, there is a '''(copy)right to copy etc etc''' (author's right) and a '''related right to copy etc etc''' (right of the author, performers and producers): they are different but the object is the same (this makes misunderstandings).<br />
Only if both rights are granted to you, you can copy (etc etc) the work.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 00:20, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I'm asking myself the same question, btw. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:04, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I cannot answer this question. But I raised this question and once at CC-license list [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-November/002854.html] in the context of proposed introduction of CC-BY-SA - GFDL compatibility. CC's responce on this matter is available at [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20051216/012205a3/FDLCompatibilityListComments-0001.pdf here]<br />
::::In short, the answer is uncertain to CC people's eyes, though they see it possible that the related rights are covered by GFDL. <br />
::::[[User:Tomos|Tomos]] 12:18, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::What do they think about the interpretation that CC-BY-SA does not copyleft related rights (i.e. grants them but does not guarantee that they will be granted to subsequent users too)? Could you try to ask them what they think about it (and how they intended it)?<br />
:::::Thank you :-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:54, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I am afraid I don't understand the question.<br />
::::::Are you talking about granting of related rights by the original licensor to users of derivative works? If so, this particular clause answers your question: ''"Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License."'' ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode CC-BY-SA 2.5] 8(b)). This means that if I compose a song, and someone performs it or arrange it, listener of the performance as well as the recipient of the arranged song will be granted the same set of rights from me as the performer and the arranger are granted.<br />
::::::Or is your question about if a licensee has to grant his rights in the same manner as the original licensor? If so, the answer seems to my eyes to be in the first part of 4(b): ''"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)."'' This means, using the same hypothetical example, the performer and arranger are required to grant substantially the same set of their rights to the users of their works as I did to them.<br />
::::::Combined, related rights related to the original work, its derivatives, and any of performances thereof are granted to licensees.<br />
::::::But well, I cannot give any official words of CC, and I am not a lawyer. If difficult question exists, I am more than happy to relay it to the list. (Though questions posted there are not answered in official manner many times.) [[User:Tomos|Tomos]] 17:19, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== GPL Non-Attribution? ==<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if the GPL should be categorised as a non-attribution license: isn't the requirement that it requires that the original copyright notice be kept equivalent to attribution? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:33, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:I'm not sure either. I've tried to talk about this point in the Attribution section. It seems to me that often, copyright notice and authorship notice are separate; the copyright notice merely mentions the main or initial author (or the corporate copyright holder), while the authorship notice lists all contributors. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:41, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::Can the copyright notice not also be used as a mechanism for attribution as well? I.e. by listing all the contributors in the copyright section. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 19:29, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::I think the mere difference is that you can do it but you don't require others to do so. Subsequent versions of the work may adopt a different policy (for example including contributors' work without giving authorship), without the original authors having a word in it. An Attribution clause prevents that.<br />
:::As for knowing whether this is important, well... ;) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:47, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::Is that a substantial difference? Subsequent contributors can choose to list authors in the copyright notice. Optional attribution is still attribution. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:11, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::The attribution clause is a requirement, just like copyleft or source code requirements. That's the whole point of it ;-) Of course, you can always grant more rights than the license asks you to. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:38, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::Why do you say that, Antoine, that seems like a spurious requirement for an attribution license. Why should we require attribution even on anonymous, unwilling contributors? The attribution in the GPL is still required in the sense that you must maintain copyright notices. What more is required? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:42, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::Ricardo, I'm not saying that ''we should require'' attribution for every contribution, I'm saying that some licenses do and some licenses don't. All of them are free, it's just a distinctive point that some people will find important.<br />
:::::::Perhaps we may drop the "attribution" column in the grid if everybody finds it is useless, but I don't think it is (considering for example that non-attribution CC licenses were dropped after it was found that very few people were using them). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:00, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I also note that you list the attribution in the GFDL as "partial" - whatever that means. This seems unncessary. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:47, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::It is partial because it does not mandate that any significant contributor is mentioned, just the "five principal authors" (whatever that means since the GFDL doesn't precise). Therefore it is not really what other licenses call attribution. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:00, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Ricardo, this is what the GPL says:<br />
"''You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately '''publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice''' and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.''"<br />
(emphasis mine)<br />
<br />
I still do not see "appropriate copyright notice" as a proper recognition of authorship (we do not know what "appropriate" means here btw.). A copyright notice is a legal statement but it does not state who is (are) the actual author(s) of the work. A movie can be "copyright Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer".<br />
<br />
For example, if you look at the source tree for a project like [http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/ GCC], the "copyright notice" in the [http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/README?rev=1.5&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup README] file does not contain authorship. There is also a [http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/MAINTAINERS?rev=1.442&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup MAINTAINERS] file which does not qualify as a copyright notice, and probably doesn't contain complete authorship information.<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:45, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Anti-DRM provisions ==<br />
<br />
Hi everyone,<br />
<br />
I'm not sure why some people seem to consider that the GPL and GFDL include some anti-DRM provisions.<br />
* The GPL v2 clearly doesn't (v3 should remain off-topic until it is officially released, IMHO).<br />
* As for the GFDL, I don't think "transparent copies" can be considered "anti-DRM" in the same way as the CC licenses. The GFDL does not forbid use of DRM, it only mentions that you must ''also'' provide a copy in a transparent format.<br />
<br />
Your thoughts?<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:43, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
GFDL:<br />
''You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.''<br />
Antoine, this is DRM!--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 20:11, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Indeed, Antoine, if you are preparing this page you should really be reading the licenses in question more carefully. I'm also not at all certain why we need to provide a license matrix: surely, on this site, all we care about is whether a license is free content or not, according to our own definition. I'm sure the information is useful, but it seems useless for our purposes other than as some attempt to bash other, non-CC and non-AL licenses. -[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:19, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I similarly note that the GFDL *is* an attribution license:<br />
::''List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.''[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html]<br />
:I would recommend you familiarise yourself with the licenses in question. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:23, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::The matrix is not meant as an absolute reference, just to give a clearer view of the landscape. Erik's request was for a license guide and I thought categorizing licenses against a set of criteria would bring a bit of clarity in the landscape.<br />
::We could just make a textual description of each license, but it would be even more subject to judgemental commentary (for example, the FSF's commentary in their list of licenses is usually far from neutral; it is not a problem for the FSF since it is really one person's voice). So I'm not sure what alternative can be found which would be both useful and rather objective.<br />
::Thanks for the corrections on the GFDL, by the way.<br />
::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:34, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I this best solution is to simply maintaining a list of free and non-free content licenses with descriptions of why they are or are not free content, as per the FSF. The matrix as it stands seems designed to favor CC licenses. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:39, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Hmm, I'm a bit confused if the matrix really seems designed to favor CC. What makes you think it is? I am not a CC fan...<br />
::::I have chosen some initial criteria that I found were important. I had already proposed this criteria in the discussion page (see [[#License_characterization]]). Other people added additional criteria (namely, "Anti-DRM" and "Related Rights").<br />
::::As I said [[Licenses#Criteria_for_choosing_a_license|in the page]], the criteria are not meant to indicate whether a license is "good" or "bad" (some people prefer copyleft, others non-copyleft, same for anti-DRM clauses, etc.) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:53, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::I suppose it was all the "no"s listed against the GNU licenses as opposed to all the "yes"'s listed against the other non-GNU licenses. I think we are confusing this wiki with Wikipedia: we do not care about the aspects of licenses (other organisations already provide this infomation, such as the CC). What we do care about is whether a license is free or non-free and we should focus on providing this infomation which we can't really do until we actually have a final and agreed upon FCD. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:46, 24 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== BSD advertising clause ==<br />
<br />
Rob, I've changed your edits regarding the advertising clause in the original BSD license. First, the FSF [http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#OriginalBSD does not consider it non-free] (''"This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the `obnoxious BSD advertising clause'. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free."'').<br />
<br />
Second, this is not the same as attribution since the advertising clause requires a specific sentence in "''all advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software''" - which is much broader than just derivative works, and stricter than asking to mention the name of authors (as the FSF [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html remarks], ''"other developers did not copy the clause verbatim. They changed it, replacing `University of California' with their own institution or their own names. The result is a plethora of licenses, '''requiring a plethora of different sentences'''."'' (emphasis mine)).<br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:54, 14 June 2006 (CEST)</div>Antoinehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=2126Licenses2006-06-14T20:47:29Z<p>Antoine: /* Attribution */ advertising clause != attribution</p>
<hr />
<div>=The grid=<br />
<br />
{|border="1" style="text-align:center"<br />
! License<br />
! [[#Intended scope|Intended scope]]<br />
! [[#Copyleft|Copyleft]]<br />
! [[#Practical modifiability|Practical modifiability]]<br />
! [[#Attribution|Attribution]]<br />
! [[#Related rights|Related rights]]<br />
! [[#Anti-DRM|Anti-DRM]]<br />
! [[#Worldwide applicability|Worldwide applicability]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Against DRM|Against DRM]]<br />
| artworks<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| granted (+copyleft)<br />
| yes<br />
| exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons BY|CC BY]]<br />
| non-software<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| yes<br />
| granted<br />
| yes<br />
| national adaptations <br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons BY-SA|CC BY-SA]]<br />
| non-software<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| yes<br />
| granted<br />
| yes<br />
| national adaptations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Design Science License|Design Science]]<br />
| -<br />
| yes<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]<br />
| non-software<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| yes<br />
| granted<br />
| no<br />
| exact translations (french law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Doc. License]]<br />
| text documents<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU FDL|GNU FDL]]<br />
| text documents<br />
| yes<br />
| yes<br />
| yes<br />
| -<br />
| yes<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU GPL|GNU GPL]]<br />
| software<br />
| yes<br />
| yes<br />
| no<br />
| -<br />
| no<br />
| same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| software<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| no<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 />
===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. 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 a 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 />
=== Anti-DRM ===<br />
<br />
Some licenses contain an anti-DRM clause.<br />
In some licenses this clause concerns only the licensee (licensor can use DRM 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 use french law (you must pay attention to french law also if the license is writed 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 />
= License list =<br />
<br />
== Against DRM ==<br />
<br />
* current version: 2.0<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): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_es.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 />
=== 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 />
=== MIT License ===<br />
<br />
* author: MIT<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html]<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 />
== Creative Commons licenses ==<br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons BY ===<br />
<br />
* complete name: Creative Commons Attribution<br />
* current version: 2.5<br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons BY-SA ===<br />
<br />
* complete name: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike<br />
* current version: 2.5<br />
<br />
== Design Science License ==<br />
<br />
* ''not maintained anymore''<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html]<br />
<br />
== Free Art License ==<br />
<br />
* current version: 1.2<br />
* author: [http://artlibre.org/ Copyleft Attitude]<br />
* reference URL (English): [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/]<br />
* reference URL (French): [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/ http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/]<br />
<br />
== GNU FDL ==<br />
<br />
* complete name: GNU Free Documentation License<br />
* current version: 1.2<br />
* author: [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html]<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 />
== GNU GPL ==<br />
<br />
* complete name: GNU General Public License<br />
* current version: 2.0<br />
* author: [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html]<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 />
=Current draft=<br />
<br />
''(to be removed when the page overhaul is finished)''<br />
<br />
Tentatively, the following licenses are known to meet the criteria set out by the [[definition]]:<br />
* [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution License] (not free for Debian)<br />
* [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License] (not free for Debian)<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License] when no invariant sections are specified (this is important)<br />
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] (not free for Debian)<br />
* [http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2.html Against DRM 2.0] <br />
* All [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html free software licenses]. While many of them are specific to software, some are worded so as to apply to all kinds of digital works. For example, the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU GPL] is often applied to non-software works (such as computer graphics, game scenarios...).<br />
<br />
In addition, works in the [[w:public domain|public domain]] are also free content as per the definition.<br />
<br />
To be verified:<br />
* [http://www.wikiweise.de/wiki/Wikiweise%3AFreie%20Wiki-Lizenz Freie Wiki-Lizenz]<br />
<br />
Controversial:<br />
* [http://iang.info/en IANG license] - seeks to enforce lots of things that are outside of the copyright realm (like organization scheme, right of developers to have a voice in the development process, etc.)</div>Antoine