https://freedomdefined.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Balleyne&feedformat=atomDefinition of Free Cultural Works - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T00:18:20ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.38.4https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:Balleyne&diff=24514User:Balleyne2021-02-09T05:35:50Z<p>Balleyne: </p>
<hr />
<div>I'm a CC BY-SA singer/songwriter, technologist and activist from Toronto, Canada. You can learn more about me on [http://blaise.ca/ my website].<br />
<br />
Read about my journey and conversion to free culture [http://blaise.ca/blog/2008/03/15/my-commitment-to-free-music-free-culture/ here].</div>Balleynehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Licenses/ND&diff=15549Talk:Licenses/ND2013-07-12T03:18:45Z<p>Balleyne: note about accessibility of these criticisms to non free software audience</p>
<hr />
<div>The current Rantifesto is great, but it'll only make sense to an audience already familiar with free software and the four freedoms. It'd be nice to have a more general introduction to the problems with ND, and common assumptions (i.e. that it's at all useful in protecting the integrity of the text). --[[User:Balleyne|Balleyne]] ([[User talk:Balleyne|talk]]) 23:18, 11 July 2013 (EDT)</div>Balleynehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=6425Licenses2009-09-02T14:15:01Z<p>Balleyne: Undo revision 6414 by Martan1111 (Talk) Non-English, HTML (instead of MediaWiki syntax)...</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparison of Licenses ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1" style="width: 100%; text-align: center; border-collapse: collapse;"<br />
! License<br />
! [[#Intended scope|Intended scope]]<br />
! [[#Copyleft|Copyleft]]<br />
! [[#Practical modifiability|Practical modifiability]]<br />
! [[#Attribution|Attribution]]<br />
! [[#Related rights|Related rights]]<br />
! [[#Access control prohibition|Access control prohibition]]<br />
! [[#Worldwide applicability|Worldwide applicability]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Against DRM|Against DRM]]<br />
| Works of art<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{yes|Licensor & Licensee}}<br />
| Exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution|Creative Commons Attribution]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations <br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike|Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Design Science License|Design Science License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally science data<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]<br />
| Works of art<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| Exact translations (French law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU Lesser General Public License|GNU Lesser General Public License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally Software<br />
| {{partial|Weak}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#GNU General Public License|GNU General Public License]]<br />
| Generic, optimally Software<br />
| {{yes|Strong}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Version 3 prohibits "Tivoisation" in certain cases}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Lizenz für Freie Inhalte|Lizenz für Freie Inhalte]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| Unknown (license text is German)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| Software<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes}}<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 />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sa.svg|48px]]<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 />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sc.svg|48px]]<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 (TPM). The Creative Commons licenses disallow use of TPMs.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_by.svg|48px]]<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, however, a reasonable requirement.<br />
<br />
=== Related rights ===<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_rr.svg|48px]]<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 />
=== Access control prohibition ===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_drm.svg|48px]]<br />
<br />
Some licenses contain a clause, which forbids to control access to the licensed content.<br />
In some licenses this clause concerns only the licensee (licensor can use access control systems to forbid not granted rights).<br />
<br />
→ [[w:Digital rights management|DRM]]<br />
<!-- please choose the Disambiguation of: [[w:TPM]] --><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 />
== List of licenses ==<br />
<br />
=== Against DRM ===<br />
<br />
* current version: 2.0<br />
* author: [http://www.freecreations.org Free Creations]<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 />
=== Creative Commons Attribution ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: CC-BY<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
<br />
=== Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: CC-BY-SA<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
<!-- <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"><br />
<Work rdf:about="urn:sha1:XCKBXFCIAIKUOW2D5JXEH3C5GFHUVHHL"><dc:date>2008</dc:date><dc:title>yung buttah</dc:title><dc:description></dc:description><dc:rights><Agent><dc:title>intro</dc:title></Agent></dc:rights><dc:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Sound" /><license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/" /></Work><br />
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/"><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/DerivativeWorks" /><prohibits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/CommercialUse" /><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/ShareAlike" /><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice" /></License><br />
</rdf:RDF> --><br />
<br />
=== Design Science License ===<br />
<br />
* ''Not maintained anymore''<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html License text (English)]<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 />
=== Free Art License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: License Arte Libre, FAL, LAL<br />
* Current version: 1.3<br />
* author: [http://artlibre.org/ Copyleft Attitude]<br />
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ License text (English, version 1.2)]<br />
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/ License text (French)]<br />
<br />
=== GNU Free Documentation License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: GNU FDL, GFDL, FDL<br />
* Current version: 1.3<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html License text (English)]<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 />
Unless additional permissions are granted, all FDL works contain unmodifiable sections which aren't called ''Invariant Sections'', such as a copy of the license embedded in the document itself.<br />
<br />
=== GNU General Public License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: GNU GPL, GPL<br />
* Current version: 3.0<br />
* Author: [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]<br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html License text (English)]<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 />
=== Lizenz für Freie Inhalte ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: LFFI<br />
* [http://www.neppstar.net/webstar/freieinhalte-webstar.html License Text (German)]<br />
<br />
AFAIK only used by the german portal neppstar for free music and video. Anyway, it seems to be a valid free license.<br />
<br />
=== MIT License ===<br />
<br />
* author: MIT<br />
* reference URL: [http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/mit-license.php http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/mit-license.php]<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 />
=== Commentary on non-free licenses ===<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/NC|Essay about the Creative Commons non-commercial restriction]]</div>Balleynehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Source_Code&diff=5493Source Code2008-12-22T11:33:08Z<p>Balleyne: /* Examples */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Definition==<br />
<br />
Source code is a delicate question to tackle in the broad context of free contents. For example, the GNU GPL defines it as ''"the preferred form of the work for making modifications to [the work]"''. Indeed, source code is of primary importance for many kinds of works (especially software).<br />
<br />
But there are also situations where the idea of source code appears irrelevant or even meaningless. Consider a digital recording of a modern rock concert. How do we define "source code" ? No symbolic or textual transcription of the concert will be able to describe exactly (so as to reproduce accurately) the manner in which the guitarist picked the strings of his instruments, the slight variations in pitch or tempo of the singer, etc.<br />
<br />
Even if no "source code" can be made available for such a work, it would be counter-productive to qualify it as "non-free" if it satisfies to the other freedoms of free content.<br />
<br />
Thus, let's define a criterion for knowing when source code is mandatory:<br />
* '''When the work or part of it is generated by computation from a modifiable structured form (e.g. textual), this modifiable structured form is called ''source code''. It must be made available to recipients of the work.'''<br />
<br />
==Discussion of terms==<br />
<br />
* ''structured'': which gives access to the structure of the work (for example, an OpenDocument file gives access to the structure of the document, whereas a PDF file doesn't)<br />
* ''modifiable'': whose format allows easy modification (including modification of structure)<br />
* ''computation'': which does not involve any creative act from a human being<br />
<br />
==Transitivity==<br />
Of course, the source code must satisfy the freedoms of free content as well.<br />
Therefore, by recursion, our definition is not weaker than the one in the GNU GPL<br />
<br />
==Examples==<br />
<br />
* software source code<br />
* editable text (raw text, XML, word processor files...)<br />
* vector graphics files<br />
* tablatures, lyrics<br />
* multitracks from an audio recording<br />
* ...</div>Balleynehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=4135Talk:Definition2008-03-21T04:18:00Z<p>Balleyne: /* Photos should not be modified */</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 />
[[Link title]]== 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)<br />
<br />
== In the summary... ==<br />
<br />
considered "free." --> considered "free".--[[User:Alnokta|Alnokta]] 20:47, 9 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== "god-like creators"? ==<br />
<br />
From the definition: "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."<br />
<br />
Is this even true? The purpose of Western copyright law is not meant to prop authors upon some pedestal to be worshiped, but to provide direct incentives for them to publish in the first place. Thus society benefits from the all-rights-reserved work, even if to a lesser extent than if work was freely licensed. I recall at least one US Supreme Court case finding that the primary purpose of copyright/patents is to provide for the benefit of society, and secondly to reward the author if he/she so chooses. Congress has made policy decisions to exempt works of federal employees from copyright, provide for "fair usage", and set (generous) copyright duration limits.<br />
<br />
My incentive to publish most of my work under free licenses is to promote a progressive international society. I expect that the Congress that passed the original version of copyright law shared the same values, as they have created the foundation which makes our work possible. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] (Who is not a lawyer.) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:True, but one has to appreciate the significant difference between original intentions and truth on the ground. I believe that the '''Original''' intentions of the people who first came up with the idea of copyright where not to different from ours, when taken in the context of the period. Yet, I think that legislative development is an evolutionary process, and evolutionary process exist in a state of equilibrium which can become unstable, at which point a fork (not dissimilar to a source code fork) tends to occur. <br />
:I think that in the case of Creative Works this fork has occurred (with the emergence of the internet as the critical factor driving the imbalance) with the "Freedom Culture" and the "IP protectionist Culture" as its two branches, both relying on the same resource, namely "Copyright laws" to archive their goals. Therefore, it is very important to make it absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture", by stating the state of affairs as they are today, not based n original intentions. On the other hand a '''Definition''' ought not to rely on emotionally charged statements to provide its information. I think that statement needs to be changed not because of what it tries to convey, but because of how it does it ... because at the end of the day the medium ''is'' the message. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:27, 13 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::By "truth on the ground," do you mean to say that aggressive copyright compliance has historically increased? The idea is plausible, but I am interested in seeing direct evidence of such a claim.<br />
<br />
::I agree that making "absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture"" is terribly important. I also posit that we should respect both and acknowledge that "free" is not always appropriate. The author needs to make that choice, a choice partially informed by freedomdefined.org. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 16:04, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::By the "truth on the ground" I mean the actual legislation and regulations that are in effect today that are supposed to implement that original intention, as well as case law, actual enforcement, the current context particularly asyncronisity with the digital media, adequacy in view of globalisation etc ... and current public perception of those intentions <br />
<br />
:::So, in short, I think we are agreeing. Where I do tend to differ slightly is on the appropriatness of freedom. I think that while in the current situation ""free" is not always appropriate", this in not necessary to the human condition, but rather and incidental effect of history. On the other hand a definition like this needs to address the here and now, and not some potential state-of-affairs where humanity enjoys universal intellectual freedom. But, again, we mostly agree see [[Talk:FAQ#What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos?|here]] for e.g. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 18:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::::Yes. I should add that I am one to enjoy history :-) I'll catch you around, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Why the sneering tone towards authorship anyway? Free Content isn't about limiting author's rights, it's about convincing people that it's better for authors to share, not that they're misguided in wanting some control at all. It's really all about the author's control over the work, because without it an author couldn't say "you must follow the GPL" any more than he could say 'no copying.' [[User:130.58.194.111|130.58.194.111]] 05:08, 22 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Photos should not be modified ==<br />
<br />
There are legal restrictions on the use and modification of photos, especially if they show living people. Personality rights in many countries do not allow to use photos in a way that could be regarded as libel. Photos of buildings or industrial products do not include the right to reproduce them. So the definition of free photos should be less permissive than the current definition and should not include the right of unlimited changes. --[[User:84.137.109.177|84.137.109.177]] 21:28, 19 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Does this need to be in the definition? Surely, all free cultural works are subject to other laws. Free software programs that capture photos in such a way that is governed by personality rights would be affected by those laws, but that doesn't make the software non-free or require the free software defintion, or a license for that matter, to include a clause about personality rights. If the definition, or a license, were to include clauses about every other possible law, there would be no point. What about child pornography, for example?<br />
: Good point, but I don't think it ought to be in the definition. --[[User:Balleyne|Balleyne]] 00:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trademarks? ==<br />
<br />
There is no mention of trademark restrictions in this article. Does the section '''No other restrictions or limitations''' also include trademark restrictions? To give an example, the [[w:Empire State Building]] is protected by trademark restrictions, so it is not "free of limitations". Is a photo of it -- a photo that was released by the photographer under a free license -- to be considered "free" according to the definition? / [[commons:User:Fred J]] 17:55, 29 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:This is an excellent question. The best example I can think of is Linux, which is obviously freely-licensed and yet there was a huge controversy and court case surrounding the trademark issue. See [[w:Linux|Copyright, licensing and the Linux trademark]] and [http://news.com.com/Torvalds+weighs+in+on+Linux+trademark+row/2100-7344_3-5841222.html]. Usually it's not a problem, but the trademark issue can make things complicated. Wikipedia, which is GFDl of course, uses trademarks all the time, and has a disclaimer about it: [[w:Wikipedia:General_disclaimer]]. [[w:User:Nadav1]] 16:06, 31 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::See also [[:m:User talk:Eloquence#Licensing policy: request for clarification]], where I had asked Erik Möller for a clarification regarding that point. The issue goes beyond trademarks. Photographs of people, for instance, cannot be used in advertising without the subject's express consent in many countries, AFAIK (personality rights). What about design protection? And so on... [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 11:15, 1 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Wiki content license ==<br />
<br />
This is terrible, you selected some license, which is still in heavy 'development' to license the content and didn't even say '2.5 or later'. Please! Use instead something like the gnu project does with "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." at the end of each page. Who can actually decide such a change in this wiki?!? --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: What substantial problem do you see with CC-BY 2.5? I agree that we should add the "any later version" clause, though technically that's problematic at this point.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 11:09, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Selecting ONE license of many for this definition of content freedom marks this one license special. Why CCby2.5? Why not FAL (LAL) 1.2? Why not GFDL? Why not GPL? If there should be a license for the definition's content at all, it should be every single of the accepted 'free content' licenses (are the ones on the licenses page valid free content licenses?) or something extremely simple and permissive as what the GNU project uses for it's web text content. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 20:33, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::PS: A terrible solution would be something like "every change made starting with 04. Dec 2007 is licensed under all of the following licenses and any of their later versions"<br />
<br />
Doesn't CC-BY 2.5 itself say that it can be relicensed under any later version (and any national version)?<br />
<br />
Allowing reuse of content under any free cultural work license would be certainly wiser, though. It's a bit strange that free cultural works are not permitted to include the definition of free cultural works (unless they use cc-by license, and only that). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 22:53, 23 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Why can't they? The cc-by license isn't a "share alike" license. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Existing exemptions ==<br />
<br />
''Free Culture Licenses do not take rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.''<br />
<br />
What exactly does this section intend to state? In the strict sense, a license can never limit an exemption (thats why it is called an exemption). If it's meant in a more general sense, saying that FC licenses are not intended to limit your rights, thats not quite true: they do limit your right to relicense derivative works.<br />
<br />
For example, some countries have a concept called panorama freedom: photos made of copyrighted buildings and statues do not need permission from the copyright owner. Thus if somebody takes a picture of a statue, he can treat it as if it were fully his own work: sell it for money, grant limited distribution rights etc. If the statue was under a free "viral" license, that license would explicitly forbid this (the photo being a derivative work). Thus free licenses ''can'' take away rights (not freedoms though; actually they take away your right to reduce the freedom of others to use your work). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 01:35, 24 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
==An Objective Definition of Free?==<br />
<br />
I've written two books about copyright, (http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/index.htm) "Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP Law" and (http://www.greglondon.com/libre/index.htm) Libre Labyrinth". Both are licensed CC-BY. "Bounty Hunters" is more geared towards understanding how to find copyright laws that are fair for All Rights Reserved applications and how Free/Libre/Open projects fit into that context. "Libre Labyrinth" focuses on objectively describing and comparing different Free/Libre/Open licenses.<br />
<br />
The GNU-GPL is graphed out on pages 40 and 41 of "Libre Labyrinth". The main point is that all the "rooms" (all the areas that could be monopolized through some IP law) are open to one another. All the "doors" have been taken off the hinges (it's a bit of an odd metaphor for explaing Venn Diagrams that include allowed state transistions, but it's explained in the beginning of the book, and it seems to work), so there is no one-way trap-doors that allow someone to monopolize the work.<br />
<br />
It would seem that this would qualify as an objectively measurable definition of "Free". I thought you might find this useful, but didn't want to put my own works into your wiki. Conflict of interest, and all that. If this is useful, someone can put it in your main page. If it's not, then feel free to leave it out.<br />
<br />
[[User:GregLondon|GregLondon]] 00:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)</div>Balleynehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:Balleyne&diff=4128User:Balleyne2008-03-17T09:47:45Z<p>Balleyne: </p>
<hr />
<div>I'm a BY-SA singer/songwriter, musician, a Computer Science student and software developer from Toronto, Canada. You can learn more about me on [http://blaise.ca/ my website].<br />
<br />
Read about my journey and conversion to free culture [http://blaise.ca/blog/2008/03/15/my-commitment-to-free-music-free-culture/ here].</div>Balleynehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:Balleyne&diff=4127User:Balleyne2008-03-17T09:47:28Z<p>Balleyne: </p>
<hr />
<div>I'm a BY-SA singer/songwriter, musician, a Computer Science student and software developer from Toronto, Canada. You can learn more about me on [http://blaise.ca/ my website].<br />
<br />
Read about my journey and conversion to free culture [http://blaise.ca/blog/2008/03/15/my-commitment-to-free-music-free-culture/ here[.</div>Balleynehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:Balleyne&diff=4115User:Balleyne2008-03-15T08:05:10Z<p>Balleyne: /* Personal Notes */ Removed my statement of opinion at the end, since it has changed.</p>
<hr />
<div>== About Me ==<br />
<br />
I'm a singer/songwriter, musician, Computer Science student and software developer from Toronto, Canada. You can learn more about me on [http://blaise.ca/ my website].<br />
<br />
== Personal Notes ==<br />
<br />
I've just created an account. Here are some quick thoughts. I may contribute these ideas elsewhere on the wiki when I have a chance.<br />
<br />
In RMS' talk on copyright, he said that different freedoms apply to different types of works. He defined three categories:<br />
<br />
* Functional works (ie. tools, e.g. software, recipes, manuals, etc.) - the four freedoms should apply to all these works<br />
* Works of opinion (e.g. an essay) - only freedom 2 applies, freedom 0 and 1 are irrelevant and freedom 3 is bad (you shouldn't have the right to modify someone else's opinion)<br />
* Works of art: this is the one area where limited (e.g. 5, 10 years) copyright would make sense. The artificial monopoly is not destructive for works of art in the same way that it is for functional works because works of art aren't necessary tools for anything that we do. Therefore, it's reasonable to have restrictions on commercial redistribution for a limited period of time to encourage the creation of works. Non-commercial verbatim distribution should be fine though. What about the remix? How do you distinguish between commercial or non-commercial? Broadcast should be fine, but does a commercial/non-commercial distinction affect that?</div>Balleynehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=FAQ&diff=4114FAQ2008-03-15T08:04:07Z<p>Balleyne: /* Why isn't a Non-Commercial restriction considered free? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Is there really a need for this? We already have so many licenses. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content and Expression Definition is not a license, it is a list of conditions under which a work must be available in order to be considered "free". In other words, it is a way to classify existing licenses. At the time the first draft of the definition was published (May 1, 2006), no such definition existed for free content (two definitions existed for free software).<br />
<br />
== So what do I need to put my work under this definition then? ==<br />
<br />
As the definition is not a license, but only classifies which licenses can be considered free, you have to pick one of these [[licenses]] and apply them to your work (usually by attaching a text such as "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license" with a link to the license text). If you want to express your support for free content, you can [[logos and buttons|help us design logos and buttons]].<br />
<br />
== What are the primary uses of this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are two primary goals:<br />
# To bring unity and clarity to the growing free content and free expression movements. We believe that a successful social movement must first define its goals and its vision and then communicate these to others. The definition helps with the first part while logos and other awareness materials can help with the second. Finally, while this website is not a community site in the traditional sense, it may help to bring together people from different free content projects, and could lead to new web sites and organizations specifically targeted at the free content movement.<br />
# To make communications with copyright holders more effective. Often, people state that their work is "free", "open content", or "open access", without qualifying this. The Creative Commons licenses are a good example of this: the Creative Commons logo simply states, generically, "Some Rights Reserved", and you have to click on he logo to find out which ones. It is very common for people to simply say that their work is [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22under+a+Creative+Commons+license%22 "under a Creative Commons license"]. This can mean many things, including, in the extreme cases, licenses which restrict the use of a work to certain world regions, or which forbid both commercial use and derivative works. This definition allows you to simply ask: "Is it ''free content''?". When the answer is "yes", you'll know precisely which rights you have.<br />
<br />
== Aren't you pretty arrogant for wanting to decide for everyone what's free? ==<br />
<br />
We are basing our work on the existing philosophies of free software and open source, on the existing policies of projects like [[w:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]], and on a strong moral conviction that as many works as reasonably possible should be available to all human beings, as freely as possible. People are welcome to release their works as something other than Free Content or Free Expression. In the short term, most people will. Many will try to use "semi-free" licenses.<br />
<br />
Of course, we do not claim or seek a monopoly on the word "free". You are free (no pun intended) to use these terms as you wish, to argue for a different set of essential freedoms, or to attempt to redirect this definition by working with us. You are welcome to create your own term, defined differently, and use that.<br />
<br />
== Why don't you have any moderators who are professional (NAME PROFESSION)? ==<br />
<br />
It may be that the right person hasn't volunteered yet. More importantly though, it's important to realize that we can't have a professional novelist, and a musician, and a lawyer, and a DJ, and a painter, and a collage artist, and a dancer, etc. There aren't that many spaces for moderators. Of course, we welcome feedback from every individual or group and are especially careful to take into account viewpoints that we think are unrepresented or new.<br />
<br />
With that said, everyone involved in this project, and especially the moderators, produces, consumes, and distributes content or expression every day. While some the freedoms listed here are freedoms designed primarily for the producers, we are also talking about the consumers of content and working hard to blur the lines between the two groups. We are all stakeholders in the process and we all -- creators, consumers, and most of us that are both -- have a voice that should be heard. The moderators have been picked not because they are particular representative of the world of creators as a group but because they respected, principled, in touch with much larger groups of creators, and willing to take into account others' opinions.<br />
<br />
== But how will people make money under this definition? ==<br />
<br />
There are many ways that people make money distributing free content and expression. They tend to differ based on the type of work and many other factors. Of course, the point of this definition is not to list these (although someone could create a page in this wiki to do exactly that). The point is to describe essential freedom. Once we have challenged ourselves to produce and consume content and expression more ethically, it becomes our ''responsibility'' to find ways to do so that are economically sustainable. Unless we challenge ourselves, there is a much lower incentive to ever go out on a limb and try.<br />
<br />
We also want to point out that the exact same question can be asked about the current copyright system. Most authors do not make a substantial amount of money from their works (many do not even make money at all). Some authors do manage to make money, but at the price of totally giving up control of their works to producers or corporations (especially in the USA, where total transfer of all rights by contract is possible and moral rights do not exist practically). Many artists of high value remained poor during much of their life, because their talent was recognized too late. Thus the question of ''how authors can make money from their work'' is not tied to the mere licensing model of the work (free vs. not free), but to the economic system surrounding authorship and to the social and cultural conditions of recognition.<br />
<br />
== What about logos? Why do all open source / free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? ==<br />
<br />
Many organisations like Creative Commons, the Open Source Initiative, or Wikimedia like to protect their identity using trademarks and copyrights. It should be noted that relatively few people in these organisations are opposed to copyright ''per se''; in fact, the [[w:copyleft|copyleft]] principle makes use of copyright to protect the freedom of works. The argument of these organisations is not one against copyright, but one for additional freedoms. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, a case can be made that logos and symbols should be freely shared, and that trademarks should be avoided -- taking the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToFork "right to fork"] to an extreme. Under this model, the identity of the project is not protected by law, and anyone can try to assume the same identity by adopting it for a different project. The marketplace of ideas is the final arbiter of success. This is true for the free content logo we're trying to create, which will be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
== What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too. ==<br />
<br />
The Free Content Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). This category is legally but also philosophically justified: creation of works - art works, free software works, free hardware design, machine design, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. Various other kinds of commons (like material commons) do not belong to this category.<br />
<br />
Since we are not proposing a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing) but a Definition (which must be based on firm conceptual ground ;-)), trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message would destroy the meaning of the message and transform it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful. <br />
<br />
We encourage other people to try and give a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. But we cannot do it in the framework of this Definition, because the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents.<br />
<br />
[[Media:<math>Exam[[Media:[[Example.ogg]]''''''Bold text'''''']]ple.ogg</math><nowiki><nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki></nowiki>]]<br />
== <br />
== Headline text ==<br />
[['''Link title'''[[<br />
== Link title ==<br />
[[Image:[[Media:Example.jpg]]<math><math>Insert formula here</math><math>--[[User:84.121.240.74|84.121.240.74]] 21:30, 8 March 2008 (EST)Insert formula here--[[User:84.121.240.74|84.121.240.74]] 21:30, 8 March 2008 (EST)[[<br />
== Link title ==<br />
'''[Bold text]<br />
== <br />
== Headline text ==<br />
[[Image:<br />
== Example.jpg ==<br />
<br />
== [Headline text] ==<br />
]] ==<br />
''']]</math></math>]]]]]] ==<br />
== Who wrote this? Who administers the site? ==<br />
<br />
== Why isn't a Non-Commercial restriction considered free?==<br />
Some ideas:<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/11/08/why-the-nc-permission-culture-simply-doesnt-work/ Why the NC permission culture simply doesn't work]<br />
* [http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/24/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft/ Non-commercial ShareAlike is not copyleft]<br />
<br />
==Why isn't a NoDerivatives restriction considered free?==</div>Balleynehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:Balleyne&diff=4052User:Balleyne2008-02-26T08:09:58Z<p>Balleyne: </p>
<hr />
<div>== About Me ==<br />
<br />
I'm a singer/songwriter, musician, Computer Science student and software developer from Toronto, Canada. You can learn more about me on [http://blaise.ca/ my website].<br />
<br />
== Personal Notes ==<br />
<br />
I've just created an account. Here are some quick thoughts. I may contribute these ideas elsewhere on the wiki when I have a chance.<br />
<br />
In RMS' talk on copyright, he said that different freedoms apply to different types of works. He defined three categories:<br />
<br />
* Functional works (ie. tools, e.g. software, recipes, manuals, etc.) - the four freedoms should apply to all these works<br />
* Works of opinion (e.g. an essay) - only freedom 2 applies, freedom 0 and 1 are irrelevant and freedom 3 is bad (you shouldn't have the right to modify someone else's opinion)<br />
* Works of art: this is the one area where limited (e.g. 5, 10 years) copyright would make sense. The artificial monopoly is not destructive for works of art in the same way that it is for functional works because works of art aren't necessary tools for anything that we do. Therefore, it's reasonable to have restrictions on commercial redistribution for a limited period of time to encourage the creation of works. Non-commercial verbatim distribution should be fine though. What about the remix? How do you distinguish between commercial or non-commercial? Broadcast should be fine, but does a commercial/non-commercial distinction affect that?<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't think that applying all four freedoms to all three categories makes sense. Neither did RMS in his talk, it seems.</div>Balleynehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:Balleyne&diff=4051User:Balleyne2008-02-26T08:07:34Z<p>Balleyne: Added a brief about me</p>
<hr />
<div>== About Me ==<br />
<br />
I'm a singer/songwriter, musician, Computer Science student and software developer from Toronto, Canada. You can learn more about me on [http://blaise.ca/ my website].<br />
<br />
== Personal Notes ==<br />
<br />
I've just created an account. Here are some quick thoughts. I may contribute these ideas elsewhere on the wiki when I have a chance.<br />
<br />
In RMS' talk on copyright, he said that different freedoms apply to different types of works. He defined three categories:<br />
<br />
* Functional works (ie. tools, e.g. software, recipes, manuals, etc.) - the four freedoms should apply to all these works<br />
* Works of opinion (e.g. an essay) - only freedom 2 applies, freedom 0 and 1 are irrelevant and freedom 3 is bad (you shouldn't have the right to modify someone else's opinion)<br />
* Works of art: this is the one area where limited (e.g. 5, 10 years) copyright would make sense. The artificial monopoly is not destructive for works of art in the same way that it is for functional works because works of art aren't necessary tools for anything that we do. Therefore, it's reasonable to have restrictions on commercial redistribution for a limited period of time to encourage the creation of works. Non-commercial verbatim distribution should be fine though. What about the remix? How do you distinguish between commercial or non-commercial? Broadcast should be fine, but does a commercial/non-commercial distinction affect that?<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't think that applying all four freedoms to all three categories makes sense. Neither did RMS in his talk.</div>Balleynehttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:Balleyne&diff=4050User:Balleyne2008-02-26T08:06:12Z<p>Balleyne: Initial thoughts...</p>
<hr />
<div>== Personal Notes ==<br />
<br />
I've just created an account. Here are some quick thoughts. I may contribute these ideas elsewhere on the wiki when I have a chance.<br />
<br />
In RMS' talk on copyright, he said that different freedoms apply to different types of works. He defined three categories:<br />
<br />
* Functional works (ie. tools, e.g. software, recipes, manuals, etc.) - the four freedoms should apply to all these works<br />
* Works of opinion (e.g. an essay) - only freedom 2 applies, freedom 0 and 1 are irrelevant and freedom 3 is bad (you shouldn't have the right to modify someone else's opinion)<br />
* Works of art: this is the one area where limited (e.g. 5, 10 years) copyright would make sense. The artificial monopoly is not destructive for works of art in the same way that it is for functional works because works of art aren't necessary tools for anything that we do. Therefore, it's reasonable to have restrictions on commercial redistribution for a limited period of time to encourage the creation of works. Non-commercial verbatim distribution should be fine though. What about the remix? How do you distinguish between commercial or non-commercial? Broadcast should be fine, but does a commercial/non-commercial distinction affect that?<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't think that applying all four freedoms to all three categories makes sense. Neither did RMS in his talk.</div>Balleyne