https://freedomdefined.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Finnrind&feedformat=atom
Definition of Free Cultural Works - User contributions [en]
2024-03-29T11:54:40Z
User contributions
MediaWiki 1.38.4
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses/CC-BY-2.5&diff=15560
Licenses/CC-BY-2.5
2013-07-13T23:31:38Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 89.204.139.215 (talk) to last revision by Finnrind</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:Licenses/CC-BY}}<br />
<br />
----<br />
== Legal code ==<br />
<div style="border: solid 1px black; padding: 1em;">CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CREATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS USE.</div><br />
<br />
''License''<br />
<br />
THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED.<br />
<br />
BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.<br />
<br />
<ol type="1"><br />
<li>'''Definitions'''<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>'''"Collective Work"''' means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.</li><br />
<li>'''"Derivative Work"''' means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.</li><br />
<li>'''"Licensor"''' means the individual or entity that offers the Work under the terms of this License.</li><br />
<li>'''"Original Author"''' means the individual or entity who created the Work. <br />
"Work" means the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this License.</li><br />
<li>'''"You"''' means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous violation.</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Fair Use Rights.''' Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.</li><br />
<br />
<li>'''License Grant.''' Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>to reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collective Works; <br />
to create and reproduce Derivative Works;</li><br />
<li>to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission the Work including as incorporated in Collective Works;</li><br />
<li>to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission Derivative Works.</li><br />
<li>For the avoidance of doubt, where the work is a musical composition:<br />
<ol type="i"><br />
<li>'''Performance Royalties Under Blanket Licenses.''' 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.</li><br />
<li>'''Mechanical Rights and Statutory Royalties.''' 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).</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
<li>'''Webcasting Rights and Statutory Royalties.''' For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a sound recording, Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a performance-rights society (e.g. SoundExchange), royalties for the public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work, subject to the compulsory license created by 17 USC Section 114 of the US Copyright Act (or the equivalent in other jurisdictions).</li><br />
</ol><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.</li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Restrictions.''' The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by clause 4(b), as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any credit as required by clause 4(b), as requested.</li><br />
<li>If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer'''<br />
<p>UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.</p><br />
</li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Limitation on Liability.''' EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE OR THE USE OF THE WORK, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.</li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Termination'''<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Derivative Works or Collective Works from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License.</li><br />
<li>Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Miscellaneous'''<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a Collective Work, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.</li><br />
<li>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.</li><br />
<li>If any provision of this License is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the terms of this License, and without further action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable.</li><br />
<li>No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.</li><br />
<li>This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
<div style="border: solid 1px black; padding: 1em;"><br />
<p>Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no warranty whatsoever in connection with the Work. Creative Commons will not be liable to You or any party on any legal theory for any damages whatsoever, including without limitation any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising in connection to this license. Notwithstanding the foregoing two (2) sentences, if Creative Commons has expressly identified itself as the Licensor hereunder, it shall have all rights and obligations of Licensor.</p><br />
<p>Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark "Creative Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons without the prior written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted use will be in compliance with Creative Commons' then-current trademark usage guidelines, as may be published on its website or otherwise made available upon request from time to time.<p><br />
<p>Creative Commons may be contacted at http://creativecommons.org/.</p><br />
</div></div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Mormegil&diff=15472
User talk:Mormegil
2013-06-22T10:11:46Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 186.57.45.116 (talk) to last revision by Mormegil</p>
<hr />
<div>== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
Thanks for your help cleaning up the wiki from that last little raft of cruft and spamming! --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Would you mind if I give you admin rights? Your regular presence here is very helpful. :) ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 17:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I would definitely not mind receiving admin rights. :-) It would make the cleaning job easier. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 05:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AMormegil Done.] Thanks for your help :) ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 03:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A bunch of antispam work ==<br />
<br />
I've updated the antispam plugins on this wiki and several others seriously. You probably noticed the recent quiet. This was because we actually ran out of CAPTCHAs a week or so ago and were simply blocking most non-admin contributions. Whoops. I've tried to create a setup which will help this. In particular, I have:<br />
<br />
* Installed [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ConfirmEdit#ReCaptcha The ConfirmEdit ReCaptcha plugin] and set up the API key so that we're doing this. In the past, we ran out of FancyCaptchas so this should address this.<br />
* I've installed the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Bad_Behavior Bad Behavior extension] which blocks IPs that are acting very suspiciously and providing impossible or implausible information.<br />
* I've turned on two differently DNSBL [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDnsBlacklistUrls DNS Blacklists] which should block IPs which have reported to have spammed. <br />
<br />
This is pretty aggressive. Do let me know if you hear that folks are having trouble contributing. I sure hope this keeps the volume of spam down. <br />
<br />
And of course, thanks for all your work on this wiki. It's definitely apprecaited. —<b>[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#C40099">m</font><font color="#600099">a</font><font color="#2D0399">k</font><font color="#362365">o</font>]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#000000">๛</font>]]</b> 12:10, 17 June 2012 (EDT)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses/CC-BY-2.5&diff=15471
Licenses/CC-BY-2.5
2013-06-22T10:11:12Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 95.42.50.246 (talk) to last revision by Finnrind</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:Licenses/CC-BY}}<br />
<br />
----<br />
== Legal code ==<br />
<div style="border: solid 1px black; padding: 1em;">CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CREATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS USE.</div><br />
<br />
''License''<br />
<br />
THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED.<br />
<br />
BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.<br />
<br />
<ol type="1"><br />
<li>'''Definitions'''<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>'''"Collective Work"''' means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.</li><br />
<li>'''"Derivative Work"''' means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.</li><br />
<li>'''"Licensor"''' means the individual or entity that offers the Work under the terms of this License.</li><br />
<li>'''"Original Author"''' means the individual or entity who created the Work. <br />
"Work" means the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this License.</li><br />
<li>'''"You"''' means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous violation.</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Fair Use Rights.''' Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.</li><br />
<br />
<li>'''License Grant.''' Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>to reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collective Works; <br />
to create and reproduce Derivative Works;</li><br />
<li>to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission the Work including as incorporated in Collective Works;</li><br />
<li>to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission Derivative Works.</li><br />
<li>For the avoidance of doubt, where the work is a musical composition:<br />
<ol type="i"><br />
<li>'''Performance Royalties Under Blanket Licenses.''' 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.</li><br />
<li>'''Mechanical Rights and Statutory Royalties.''' 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).</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
<li>'''Webcasting Rights and Statutory Royalties.''' For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a sound recording, Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a performance-rights society (e.g. SoundExchange), royalties for the public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work, subject to the compulsory license created by 17 USC Section 114 of the US Copyright Act (or the equivalent in other jurisdictions).</li><br />
</ol><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.</li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Restrictions.''' The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by clause 4(b), as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any credit as required by clause 4(b), as requested.</li><br />
<li>If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer'''<br />
<p>UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.</p><br />
</li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Limitation on Liability.''' EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE OR THE USE OF THE WORK, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.</li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Termination'''<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Derivative Works or Collective Works from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License.</li><br />
<li>Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Miscellaneous'''<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a Collective Work, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.</li><br />
<li>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.</li><br />
<li>If any provision of this License is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the terms of this License, and without further action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable.</li><br />
<li>No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.</li><br />
<li>This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
<div style="border: solid 1px black; padding: 1em;"><br />
<p>Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no warranty whatsoever in connection with the Work. Creative Commons will not be liable to You or any party on any legal theory for any damages whatsoever, including without limitation any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising in connection to this license. Notwithstanding the foregoing two (2) sentences, if Creative Commons has expressly identified itself as the Licensor hereunder, it shall have all rights and obligations of Licensor.</p><br />
<p>Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark "Creative Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons without the prior written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted use will be in compliance with Creative Commons' then-current trademark usage guidelines, as may be published on its website or otherwise made available upon request from time to time.<p><br />
<p>Creative Commons may be contacted at http://creativecommons.org/.</p><br />
</div></div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses/CC-BY-2.5&diff=15458
Licenses/CC-BY-2.5
2013-06-10T14:33:59Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 180.254.123.25 (talk) to last revision by Mormegil</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:Licenses/CC-BY}}<br />
<br />
----<br />
== Legal code ==<br />
<div style="border: solid 1px black; padding: 1em;">CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CREATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS USE.</div><br />
<br />
''License''<br />
<br />
THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED.<br />
<br />
BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.<br />
<br />
<ol type="1"><br />
<li>'''Definitions'''<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>'''"Collective Work"''' means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.</li><br />
<li>'''"Derivative Work"''' means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.</li><br />
<li>'''"Licensor"''' means the individual or entity that offers the Work under the terms of this License.</li><br />
<li>'''"Original Author"''' means the individual or entity who created the Work. <br />
"Work" means the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this License.</li><br />
<li>'''"You"''' means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous violation.</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Fair Use Rights.''' Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.</li><br />
<br />
<li>'''License Grant.''' Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>to reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collective Works; <br />
to create and reproduce Derivative Works;</li><br />
<li>to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission the Work including as incorporated in Collective Works;</li><br />
<li>to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission Derivative Works.</li><br />
<li>For the avoidance of doubt, where the work is a musical composition:<br />
<ol type="i"><br />
<li>'''Performance Royalties Under Blanket Licenses.''' 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.</li><br />
<li>'''Mechanical Rights and Statutory Royalties.''' 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).</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
<li>'''Webcasting Rights and Statutory Royalties.''' For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a sound recording, Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a performance-rights society (e.g. SoundExchange), royalties for the public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work, subject to the compulsory license created by 17 USC Section 114 of the US Copyright Act (or the equivalent in other jurisdictions).</li><br />
</ol><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.</li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Restrictions.''' The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by clause 4(b), as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any credit as required by clause 4(b), as requested.</li><br />
<li>If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer'''<br />
<p>UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.</p><br />
</li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Limitation on Liability.''' EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE OR THE USE OF THE WORK, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.</li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Termination'''<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Derivative Works or Collective Works from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License.</li><br />
<li>Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
<br />
<li>'''Miscellaneous'''<br />
<ol type="a"><br />
<li>Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a Collective Work, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.</li><br />
<li>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.</li><br />
<li>If any provision of this License is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the terms of this License, and without further action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable.</li><br />
<li>No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.</li><br />
<li>This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.</li><br />
</ol></li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
<div style="border: solid 1px black; padding: 1em;"><br />
<p>Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no warranty whatsoever in connection with the Work. Creative Commons will not be liable to You or any party on any legal theory for any damages whatsoever, including without limitation any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising in connection to this license. Notwithstanding the foregoing two (2) sentences, if Creative Commons has expressly identified itself as the Licensor hereunder, it shall have all rights and obligations of Licensor.</p><br />
<p>Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark "Creative Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons without the prior written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted use will be in compliance with Creative Commons' then-current trademark usage guidelines, as may be published on its website or otherwise made available upon request from time to time.<p><br />
<p>Creative Commons may be contacted at http://creativecommons.org/.</p><br />
</div></div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Nb&diff=9427
Definition/Nb
2011-02-26T09:40:46Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 68.28.115.114 (Talk) to last revision by 195.189.142.42</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sammendrag ==<br />
Dette dokumentet definerer «frie kulturelle verker» (''free cultural works'') som verk eller uttrykk som fritt kan studeres, brukes, kopieres og/eller endres av hvem som helst, til hvilket formål som helst. Det beskriver også visse akseptable begrensninger, som tar hensyn til eller beskytter disse grunnleggende friheter. Definisjonen skiller mellom ''frie verk'' og ''[[Licenses|frie lisenser]]'', som kan brukes for å beskytte et fritt verks juridiske status. Definisjonen er ''ikke'' en lisens i seg selv; den er et verktøy for å bestemme om et verk eller en lisens skal betraktes som «fri».<br />
<br />
== Innledning ==<br />
Sosiale og teknologiske framsteg gjør det mulig for en voksende del av menneskeheten til å ''ha tilgang til'', ''skape'', ''forandre'' og ''publisere'' ulike typer arbeider – kunstverk, forsknings- og utdanningsmateriell, programvare og artikler. Kort sagt: ''alt som kan representeres i digital form''. Mange sammenslutninger og fellesskap har blitt skapt for å utøve disse nye mulighetene og skape en stor mengde kollektivt gjenbrukbare verk.<br />
<br />
Uansett hvilke felter de virker innen, og uansett status som amatør eller profesjonell, har de fleste opphavsmenn en sann interesse av å foretrekke et økosystem der verk kan spres, gjenbrukes og bearbeides på kreative måter. Jo lettere det er å gjenbruke og bearbeide et verk, jo rikere blir våre kulturer.<br />
<br />
For å forsikre om at dette økosystemet fungerer smidig bør opphavsmennenes verk være '''frie'''. Med ''frihet'' menes her:<br />
*'''friheten til å bruke''' verket, og nyte fordelene av å bruke det<br />
*'''frihet til å studere''' verket, og bruke kunnskapen som er tilegnet ved hjelp av det<br />
*'''frihet til å skape og spre flere utgaver''' fullstendig eller delvis, av informasjonen eller uttrykket<br />
*'''frihet til å endre og forbedre''' verket, og å spre det forbedrede verket videre<br />
<br />
Disse frihetene burde være tilgjengelige for alle, hvor som helst og når som helst. De burde ikke begrenses av hvilken sammenheng verket brukes i. Kreativitet er handlingen i å bruke en eksisterende ressurs på en måte ingen tidligere hadde tenkt på.<br />
<br />
I de fleste land opprettholdes imidlertid ikke disse frihetene. I stedet undertrykkes de av lover som vanligvis kalles ''opphavsrettslover''. De betrakter opphavspersonene som gudelignende skapere, og gir dem et eksklusivt monopol over hvordan «deres materiell» kan gjenbrukes. Denne eneretten hindrer kulturen i å blomstre, og hjelper ikke opphavspersonenes økonomi i like stor grad som den beskytter de mektigste forlag- og produksjonsselskapenes firmamodell.<br />
<br />
Til tross for disse lovene kan opphavspersoner gjøre sine verk frie gjennom å velge blant en mangfold av juridiske dokumenter kalt [[License|frie lisenser]]. Når en opphavsperson velger å slippe sitt verk under en ''fri lisens'' innebærer det ikke at denne mister sine rettigheter til det, men gir alle andre de frihetene som listes opp ovenfor.<br />
<br />
Det er viktig at verk som hevdes å være frie i praksis og uten risiko tilbyr de nevnte frihetene. Det er derfor vi nedenfor gir en eksakt '''definisjon av frihet''' for lisenser og for verk.<br />
<br />
== Å definere verk som frie ==<br />
Dette er en ''definisjon av frie kulturelle verk''. Vi oppmuntrer opphavspersoner som beskriver sine verk til å henvise til denne definisjonen som «Dette er et fritt lisensiert verk, slik det beskrives i ''Definisjonen av frie kulturelle verk''». Om man ikke liker begrepet «frie kulturelle verk» kan man bruke det mer generelle begrepet «fritt innhold», eller henvise til en av de [[Existing Movements|eksisterende bevegelsene]] som beskriver lignende friheter i mer spesifikke sammenhenger. Vi oppfordrer også til å bruke noen av de opphavsrettsfrie [[Logos and buttons|logoene og knappene for frie kulturelle verk]].<br />
<br />
Man skal være oppmerksom på at en slik beskrivelse ''ikke'' gir de rettighetene som beskrives i denne definisjonen. For at et verk skal kunne være helt fritt må det benytte en av de frie [[Licenses|kulturlisensene]], eller alternativt ikke dekkes av opphavsrett (utløpt vernetid eller at opphavspersonen dediserer verket som "offentlig eiendom", dvs. fraskriver seg alle de opphavsrettighetene som han eller hun kan fraskrive seg i sin jurisdiksjon (eller i den jurisdiksjonen han/hun velger å frisette verket i)).<br />
<br />
Vi fraråder å bruke andre begreper for å identifisere frie kulturelle verk, som ikke gir en klar definisjon av frihet. Eksempler på slike er ''åpent innhold'' (Open Content) og ''fri tilgang'' (Open access). Disse begrepene brukes ofte for å referere til innhold som er tilgjengelig under «mindre restriktive» krav enn de eksisterende opphavsrettslovene, eller for verk som er «tilgjengelige på Internett».<br />
<br />
== Definisjon av frie kulturelle lisenser ==<br />
Lisenser er juridiske instrumenter som gjør det mulig for eieren av et verk å overføre sine rettigheter til andre. Frie kulturelle lisenser fjerner ikke rettigheter – det er alltid valgfritt å godkjenne dem, og om de godkjennes, gir de friheter som opphavsrettslover i seg selv ikke gir. <em>Når en slik lisens aksepteres av brukeren, innebærer ikke denne aksepten at eksisterende<br />
unntak, avgrensninger eller friheter som brukeren har etter loven blir redusert eller begrenset. Altså, brukeren mister ingen av de rettighetene han eller hun<br />
allerede har fra før.</em><br />
<br />
=== Grunnleggende friheter ===<br />
For at en lisens skal betraktes som fri ifølge denne definisjonen, må den uten begrensninger oppfylle følgende kriterier:<br />
<br />
*'''Friheten til å bruke og framføre verket:''' Brukeren må tillates å bruke verket på alle måter både privat og offentlig. For de typer verk der dette er relevant burde denne friheten inkludere all avledet bruk («relaterte rettigheter»), som framføring eller tolkning av verket. Det må ikke være unntak for for eksempel religiøse eller politiske interesser.<br />
*'''Friheten til å studere verket og bruke informasjonen:''' Brukeren må tillates å studere verket og bruke kunnskapen hentet fra verket på en hvilken som helst måte. Lisensen kan for eksempel ikke hindre «reverse engineering».<br />
*'''Friheten til å spre verket i flere eksemplarer:''' Kopier skal kunne selges, byttes eller gis bort gratis, både som del av et større verk, i en samling eller selvstendig. Det må ikke være noen begrensning på mengden informasjon som kan kopieres. Det må heller ikke finnes begrensninger på hvem som kan kopiere informasjonen eller hvor den kan kopieres.<br />
*'''Friheten til å spre bearbeidinger av verket:''' For å gi alle muligheten til å spre et verk, må ikke lisensen begrense friheten til å spre modifiserte utgaver (eller, for fysiske verk, et verk som på en eller annen måte er derivert fra originalen), uavhengig av hvilken hensikt forandringene har. Visse restriksjoner kan imidlertid tas i bruk for å beskytte disse grunnleggende rettighetene eller for å bevare opphavspersonens ideelle rettigheter (se nedenfor).<br />
<br />
=== Akseptable begrensninger ===<br />
Ikke alle innskrenkninger som gjelder bruk eller spredning av verket hindrer de grunnleggende frihetene. Spesielt anses krav til å erkjenne opphavsmannen, for «symmetrisk samarbeid» (dvs. copyleft) og til å beskytte de grunnleggende frihetene som [[Permissible restrictions|akseptable begrensninger]].<br />
<br />
== Definisjon av frie kulturelle verk ==<br />
For at verk skal anses som frie, ''må'' de enten legges under en fri kulturell lisens, eller så ''må'' deres juridiske status tillate de samme grunnleggende frihetene som foreskrives ovenfor. Dette kravet er imidlertid ikke tilstrekkelig for å regne verket som fritt. Et spesifikt verk kan være ufritt på andre måter som begrenser de grunnleggende frihetene. Dette er de ytterlige kravene som må oppfylles for å regne et verk som fritt:<br />
<br />
*'''Tilgjengelig kildedata:''' Når et verk er oppnådd gjennom samling eller prosessering av én eller flere kildefiler, burde all tilgjengelig kildedata også være tilgjengelig sammen med verket under samme forutsetninger. Dette kan være notene til et musikkstykke, modeller brukt for scenografi, data for vitenskapelige skrifter, kildekode til dataprogrammer eller annen lignende informasjon.<br />
*'''Bruk av et fritt format:''' For digitale filer, burde formatet verket gjøres tilgjengelig på ikke omfattes av patenter, med mindre en verdensomfattende, ubegrenset og ugjenkallelig royalty-fri tillatelse til å bruke den patenterte teknikken er gitt. Ufrie format finnes iblant av praktiske grunner, men et eksempler i et fritt format ''må'' være tilgjengelig for å regne verket som fritt.<br />
*'''Ingen tekniske begrensninger:''' Verket må være tilgjengelig i en form der ingen tekniske hindre brukes for å begrense frihetene som foreskrives ovenfor.<br />
*'''Ingen andre begrensninger:''' Verket må i seg selv ikke dekkes av juridiske restriksjoner (patenter, kontrakter, etc.) eller begrensninger (som personvernsrettigheter) som kan hindre frihetene som foreskrives ovenfor. Et verk kan ta i bruk eksisterende juridiske unntak (for å sitere opphavsbeskyttede verk), men kun de deler av det som er utvetydig frie utgjør et fritt verk.<br />
<br />
Med andre ord: Når den som bruker et verk ikke juridisk eller praktisk kan utøve sine grunnleggende rettigheter, kan ikke verket anses for, og bør ikke kalles for «fritt».<br />
<br />
== Ytterligere lesing ==<br />
*[[Licenses|Lisenser]] (engelsk). Diskusjon rundt individuelle lisenser og hvorvidt de stemmer overens med denne definisjonen.<br />
*[[History|Historikk]] (engelsk). Informasjon om denne sidens opphavspersoner og bakgrunn.<br />
*[[FAQ|OSS]] (engelsk). Spørsmål og svar.<br />
*[[Portal:Index|Portal:Indeks]] (engelsk). Emnespesifikke sider om frie kulturelle verk.<br />
<br />
== Versjoner ==<br />
Nye versjoner av denne definisjonen vil slippes så snart det er konsensus (direkte eller gjennom avstemning, i forhold til [[authoring process|skribentprosessen]]) har blitt oppnådd rundt foreslåtte endringer. Nummereringen vil bli 0.x for utkast, 1.x, 2.x, osv. for større forandringer, x..1, x.2, osv. for mindre endringer. En mindre endring innebærer at teksten endres på en måte som ikke påvirker de eksisterende eller hypotetiske lisensene som omfattes av denne definisjonen.</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=6436
Definition/Unstable
2009-09-05T10:50:12Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 213.6.74.235 (Talk) to last revision by 82.199.205.110</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 />
<br />
----<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document provides a definition of "Free Cultural Works" [the Definition], which are roughly works or expressions that can be freely studied, applied, copied and modified, by anyone and for any purpose. 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." This document also describes restrictions that respect or protect the freedoms of Free Cultural Works.<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' cultural works that can be represented in digital form. These works include artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, and articles. Many communities have formed to exercise these new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively reusable works.<br />
<br />
To encourage this growth in creativity, works of authorship should be '''free''' as in ''freedom'', where by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and to enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the work<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available <br />
* '''to anyone''';<br />
* '''anywhere''', i.e. worldwide;<br />
* '''anytime''', i.e. unlimited and irrevocable. <br />
<br />
They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
If authors do not specify this freedom, their works are covered by existing copyright laws which default to All Rights Reserved. All Rights Reserved considerably limit what others can and cannot do with the work of others. Authors can make their works free by choosing among a number of legal documents known as licenses. For an author, choosing to put their work under a ''free license'' does not mean that they lose all their rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be 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 />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be actually free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain, or equivalent of.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than All Rights Reserved, or for works that are just "available on the Web", but they don't necessarily carry with them the freedoms referred to in this document.<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take rights away — they specify freedoms that are not included in a default copyright license such as All Rights Reserved. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following essential freedoms:<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. Neither may there be a limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work's 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. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a 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 or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights or being for non-commercial use only) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously 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 and should not be called "free." Works that either have no copyright (thus being in the public domain), or are licensed under a Free Culture License comply with these guidelines.<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 cultural works.<br />
* See [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_knowledge Wikipedia on Free/Libre Knowledge]<br />
* See [http://ictlogy.net/?p=12#fourkinds The Four Kinds of Freedom of Free Knowledge]<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>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Source_Code&diff=6435
Source Code
2009-09-05T10:47:56Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 64.27.165.112 (Talk) to last revision by 188.3.186.65</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 />
<br />
'''----<br />
<br />
== Headline text ==<br />
==Transitivity==<br />
Of course, the source code must satisfy the freedoms of free content as well.'''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>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Nb&diff=6434
Definition/Nb
2009-09-05T10:47:10Z
<p>Finnrind: nulledit, last ip edit was me :)</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sammendrag ==<br />
Dette dokumentet definerer «frie kulturelle verker» (''free cultural works'') som verk eller uttrykk som fritt kan studeres, brukes, kopieres og/eller endres av hvem som helst, til hvilket formål som helst. Det beskriver også visse akseptable begrensninger, som tar hensyn til eller beskytter disse grunnleggende friheter. Definisjonen skiller mellom ''frie verk'' og ''[[Licenses|frie lisenser]]'', som kan brukes for å beskytte et fritt verks juridiske status. Definisjonen er ''ikke'' en lisens i seg selv; den er et verktøy for å bestemme om et verk eller en lisens skal betraktes som «fri».<br />
<br />
== Innledning ==<br />
Sosiale og teknologiske framsteg gjør det mulig for en voksende del av menneskeheten til å ''ha tilgang til'', ''skape'', ''forandre'' og ''publisere'' ulike typer arbeider – kunstverk, forsknings- og utdanningsmateriell, programvare og artikler. Kort sagt: ''alt som kan representeres i digital form''. Mange sammenslutninger og fellesskap har blitt skapt for å utøve disse nye mulighetene og skape en stor mengde kollektivt gjenbrukbare verk.<br />
<br />
Uansett hvilke felter de virker innen, og uansett status som amatør eller profesjonell, har de fleste opphavsmenn en sann interesse av å foretrekke et økosystem der verk kan spres, gjenbrukes og bearbeides på kreative måter. Jo lettere det er å gjenbruke og bearbeide et verk, jo rikere blir våre kulturer.<br />
<br />
For å forsikre om at dette økosystemet fungerer smidig bør opphavsmennenes verk være '''frie'''. Med ''frihet'' menes her:<br />
*'''friheten til å bruke''' verket, og nyte fordelene av å bruke det<br />
*'''frihet til å studere''' verket, og bruke kunnskapen som er tilegnet ved hjelp av det<br />
*'''frihet til å skape og spre flere utgaver''' fullstendig eller delvis, av informasjonen eller uttrykket<br />
*'''frihet til å endre og forbedre''' verket, og å spre det forbedrede verket videre<br />
<br />
Disse frihetene burde være tilgjengelige for alle, hvor som helst og når som helst. De burde ikke begrenses av hvilken sammenheng verket brukes i. Kreativitet er handlingen i å bruke en eksisterende ressurs på en måte ingen tidligere hadde tenkt på.<br />
<br />
I de fleste land opprettholdes imidlertid ikke disse frihetene. I stedet undertrykkes de av lover som vanligvis kalles ''opphavsrettslover''. De betrakter opphavspersonene som gudelignende skapere, og gir dem et eksklusivt monopol over hvordan «deres materiell» kan gjenbrukes. Denne eneretten hindrer kulturen i å blomstre, og hjelper ikke opphavspersonenes økonomi i like stor grad som den beskytter de mektigste forlag- og produksjonsselskapenes firmamodell.<br />
<br />
Til tross for disse lovene kan opphavspersoner gjøre sine verk frie gjennom å velge blant en mangfold av juridiske dokumenter kalt [[License|frie lisenser]]. Når en opphavsperson velger å slippe sitt verk under en ''fri lisens'' innebærer det ikke at denne mister sine rettigheter til det, men gir alle andre de frihetene som listes opp ovenfor.<br />
<br />
Det er viktig at verk som hevdes å være frie i praksis og uten risiko tilbyr de nevnte frihetene. Det er derfor vi nedenfor gir en eksakt '''definisjon av frihet''' for lisenser og for verk.<br />
<br />
== Å definere verk som frie ==<br />
Dette er en ''definisjon av frie kulturelle verk''. Vi oppmuntrer opphavspersoner som beskriver sine verk til å henvise til denne definisjonen som «Dette er et fritt lisensiert verk, slik det beskrives i ''Definisjonen av frie kulturelle verk''». Om man ikke liker begrepet «frie kulturelle verk» kan man bruke det mer generelle begrepet «fritt innhold», eller henvise til en av de [[Existing Movements|eksisterende bevegelsene]] som beskriver lignende friheter i mer spesifikke sammenhenger. Vi oppfordrer også til å bruke noen av de opphavsrettsfrie [[Logos and buttons|logoene og knappene for frie kulturelle verk]].<br />
<br />
Man skal være oppmerksom på at en slik beskrivelse ''ikke'' gir de rettighetene som beskrives i denne definisjonen. For at et verk skal kunne være helt fritt må det benytte en av de frie [[Licenses|kulturlisensene]], eller alternativt ikke dekkes av opphavsrett (utløpt vernetid eller at opphavspersonen dediserer verket som "offentlig eiendom", dvs. fraskriver seg alle de opphavsrettighetene som han eller hun kan fraskrive seg i sin jurisdiksjon (eller i den jurisdiksjonen han/hun velger å frisette verket i)).<br />
<br />
Vi fraråder å bruke andre begreper for å identifisere frie kulturelle verk, som ikke gir en klar definisjon av frihet. Eksempler på slike er ''åpent innhold'' (Open Content) og ''fri tilgang'' (Open access). Disse begrepene brukes ofte for å referere til innhold som er tilgjengelig under «mindre restriktive» krav enn de eksisterende opphavsrettslovene, eller for verk som er «tilgjengelige på Internett».<br />
<br />
== Definisjon av frie kulturelle lisenser ==<br />
Lisenser er juridiske instrumenter som gjør det mulig for eieren av et verk å overføre sine rettigheter til andre. Frie kulturelle lisenser fjerner ikke rettigheter – det er alltid valgfritt å godkjenne dem, og om de godkjennes, gir de friheter som opphavsrettslover i seg selv ikke gir. <em>Når en slik lisens aksepteres av brukeren, innebærer ikke denne aksepten at eksisterende<br />
unntak, avgrensninger eller friheter som brukeren har etter loven blir redusert eller begrenset. Altså, brukeren mister ingen av de rettighetene han eller hun<br />
allerede har fra før.</em><br />
<br />
=== Grunnleggende friheter ===<br />
For at en lisens skal betraktes som fri ifølge denne definisjonen, må den uten begrensninger oppfylle følgende kriterier:<br />
<br />
*'''Friheten til å bruke og framføre verket:''' Brukeren må tillates å bruke verket på alle måter både privat og offentlig. For de typer verk der dette er relevant burde denne friheten inkludere all avledet bruk («relaterte rettigheter»), som framføring eller tolkning av verket. Det må ikke være unntak for for eksempel religiøse eller politiske interesser.<br />
*'''Friheten til å studere verket og bruke informasjonen:''' Brukeren må tillates å studere verket og bruke kunnskapen hentet fra verket på en hvilken som helst måte. Lisensen kan for eksempel ikke hindre «reverse engineering».<br />
*'''Friheten til å spre verket i flere eksemplarer:''' Kopier skal kunne selges, byttes eller gis bort gratis, både som del av et større verk, i en samling eller selvstendig. Det må ikke være noen begrensning på mengden informasjon som kan kopieres. Det må heller ikke finnes begrensninger på hvem som kan kopiere informasjonen eller hvor den kan kopieres.<br />
*'''Friheten til å spre bearbeidinger av verket:''' For å gi alle muligheten til å spre et verk, må ikke lisensen begrense friheten til å spre modifiserte utgaver (eller, for fysiske verk, et verk som på en eller annen måte er derivert fra originalen), uavhengig av hvilken hensikt forandringene har. Visse restriksjoner kan imidlertid tas i bruk for å beskytte disse grunnleggende rettighetene eller for å bevare opphavspersonens ideelle rettigheter (se nedenfor).<br />
<br />
=== Akseptable begrensninger ===<br />
Ikke alle innskrenkninger som gjelder bruk eller spredning av verket hindrer de grunnleggende frihetene. Spesielt anses krav til å erkjenne opphavsmannen, for «symmetrisk samarbeid» (dvs. copyleft) og til å beskytte de grunnleggende frihetene som [[Permissible restrictions|akseptable begrensninger]].<br />
<br />
== Definisjon av frie kulturelle verk ==<br />
For at verk skal anses som frie, ''må'' de enten legges under en fri kulturell lisens, eller så ''må'' deres juridiske status tillate de samme grunnleggende frihetene som foreskrives ovenfor. Dette kravet er imidlertid ikke tilstrekkelig for å regne verket som fritt. Et spesifikt verk kan være ufritt på andre måter som begrenser de grunnleggende frihetene. Dette er de ytterlige kravene som må oppfylles for å regne et verk som fritt:<br />
<br />
*'''Tilgjengelig kildedata:''' Når et verk er oppnådd gjennom samling eller prosessering av én eller flere kildefiler, burde all tilgjengelig kildedata også være tilgjengelig sammen med verket under samme forutsetninger. Dette kan være notene til et musikkstykke, modeller brukt for scenografi, data for vitenskapelige skrifter, kildekode til dataprogrammer eller annen lignende informasjon.<br />
*'''Bruk av et fritt format:''' For digitale filer, burde formatet verket gjøres tilgjengelig på ikke omfattes av patenter, med mindre en verdensomfattende, ubegrenset og ugjenkallelig royalty-fri tillatelse til å bruke den patenterte teknikken er gitt. Ufrie format finnes iblant av praktiske grunner, men et eksempler i et fritt format ''må'' være tilgjengelig for å regne verket som fritt.<br />
*'''Ingen tekniske begrensninger:''' Verket må være tilgjengelig i en form der ingen tekniske hindre brukes for å begrense frihetene som foreskrives ovenfor.<br />
*'''Ingen andre begrensninger:''' Verket må i seg selv ikke dekkes av juridiske restriksjoner (patenter, kontrakter, etc.) eller begrensninger (som personvernsrettigheter) som kan hindre frihetene som foreskrives ovenfor. Et verk kan ta i bruk eksisterende juridiske unntak (for å sitere opphavsbeskyttede verk), men kun de deler av det som er utvetydig frie utgjør et fritt verk.<br />
<br />
Med andre ord: Når den som bruker et verk ikke juridisk eller praktisk kan utøve sine grunnleggende rettigheter, kan ikke verket anses for, og bør ikke kalles for «fritt».<br />
<br />
== Ytterligere lesing ==<br />
*[[Licenses|Lisenser]] (engelsk). Diskusjon rundt individuelle lisenser og hvorvidt de stemmer overens med denne definisjonen.<br />
*[[History|Historikk]] (engelsk). Informasjon om denne sidens opphavspersoner og bakgrunn.<br />
*[[FAQ|OSS]] (engelsk). Spørsmål og svar.<br />
*[[Portal:Index|Portal:Indeks]] (engelsk). Emnespesifikke sider om frie kulturelle verk.<br />
<br />
== Versjoner ==<br />
Nye versjoner av denne definisjonen vil slippes så snart det er konsensus (direkte eller gjennom avstemning, i forhold til [[authoring process|skribentprosessen]]) har blitt oppnådd rundt foreslåtte endringer. Nummereringen vil bli 0.x for utkast, 1.x, 2.x, osv. for større forandringer, x..1, x.2, osv. for mindre endringer. En mindre endring innebærer at teksten endres på en måte som ikke påvirker de eksisterende eller hypotetiske lisensene som omfattes av denne definisjonen.</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Finnrind&diff=5877
User talk:Finnrind
2009-04-14T17:48:53Z
<p>Finnrind: /* More cleanup */ thanks</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi Finnrind. Welcome to the Free Cultural Works wiki. Thanks for reverting that vandalism. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 00:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reviewed/ stable version Norwegian ==<br />
Sorry, but I don't know. Some translations on the [[Definition|home page]] say "Reviewed translations" but I've no idea who is supposed to review or approve them. I'd suggest asking on the [http://groups.google.com/group/freeculturalworks/ mailing list] or [[Special:Emailuser/Erik Möller|contacting Erik]] about this. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 09:00, 22 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:ok, sending Erik an e-mail then. Asked at your page since you seem to be the only sysop regularly checking in here ;) [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 11:54, 22 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Pages for deletion? ==<br />
<br />
There are two pages in [[:Category:Pages for deletion]], one of which has been there since Nov 2008. You may want to fix this. [[Special:Contributions/67.150.173.9|67.150.173.9]] (really, [[w:en:User:JesseW/not logged in]]) 16:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== More cleanup ==<br />
<br />
Thanks for taking care of those pages to be deleted. I have [[:Category:Pages for deletion|a few more]] for you; [[Logo contest]] needs reverting again, (I'd do it, but the CAPTCHA seems to be broken...); [[Definition of Free Cultural Works:Copyrights]] should be protected. Thanks for volunteering your time with this! [[Special:Contributions/67.150.171.215|67.150.171.215]] 17:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks for tagging these, and especially for notifying me here - I get e-mail notification whenever someone edits this page& I otherwise only rarely visit this site. Best regards, [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition_of_Free_Cultural_Works:Copyrights&diff=5876
Definition of Free Cultural Works:Copyrights
2009-04-14T17:44:17Z
<p>Finnrind: Protected "Definition of Free Cultural Works:Copyrights": per request [edit=sysop:move=sysop]</p>
<hr />
<div>The content of this wiki is available under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution 2.5] unless otherwise specified.</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logo_contest&diff=5875
Logo contest
2009-04-14T17:35:44Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 86.57.246.228 (Talk) to last version by Spiritia</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 />
: How about a mix of the swirly into "Libre" below? (i.e. instead of the butterfly) [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]<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)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for the comments - I'd only read the stable version of the definition! Based on your preference for the simple flower-outline, I've developed it a bit further:<br />
<br />
::[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_8.png]]<br />
<br />
::These are some variants where the shape of the petals is made more distinctive while still being easy to draw. To be honest I prefer the final two (bottom line, two closest to right), maybe together with the simple outline one.<br />
<br />
::As another alternative, it was suggested to me that an 'ASCII art' logo, or at least one which could be approximated entirely by standard keyboard characters, might be a good idea. Just as we can type (C) instead of using the © character, so we could type {f} - the curly brackets give a rough (if not very clear) approximation of the flower outline (perhaps) and also illustrate a 'playful' nature:<br />
<br />
::[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_9.png]]<br />
<br />
::But it is rather bland!<br />
<br />
::A completely different alternative that occurred to me was to turn the 'authoritarian' nature of the (C) logo into something more friendly and obviously playful:<br />
<br />
::[[Image:Freedom_logos_DL_10.png]]<br />
--[[User:Dan Lockton|Dan Lockton]] 00:12, 5 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Libre ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Libre-kt.png|Libre Emblem Button]] [[Image:Libre-kt-zh.png |Libre Emblem Chinese version]]<br />
<!-- http://freedomdefined.org/upload/5/5a/Libre-kt.png --><br />
<br />
Invitation to artists: add "Libre" logos/emblems to this page. <br />
Note: the proposed change from "Free" to "Libre" to disambiguate "free". <br />
Libre can apply to free/libre culture, free/libre knowledge, free/libre software, etc. - or in fact any [http://communities.libre.org/ libre resources].<br />
<br />
Also, feel free to contribute/discuss alternative language versions (e.g. 自由, etc.).<br />
<br />
Links:<br />
<br />
[http://libre.org Libre.org] [http://communities.libre.org Communities] [http://communities.libre.org/about/emblem/ Emblem]<br />
<br />
Great work everyone :-).<br />
<br />
Kim</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Spiritia&diff=5845
User talk:Spiritia
2009-04-08T16:15:47Z
<p>Finnrind: /* Pages for deletion? */ done</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi Spiritia. Welcome to this wiki. Thanks for your work on the [[Definition/Bg|translation]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 00:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Thank you, Angela! It was reviewed by [[User:Borislav|Borislav]] - one of our bureaucrats on BG WP and other BG projects and founder of the local branch. Is anything else needed before it can be moved to the reviewed ones? [[User:Spiritia|Spiritia]] 16:04, 8 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Moved to "reviewed" - thnaks for helping out! Regards, [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 05:32, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Admin ==<br />
<br />
After an email from [[User:Angela|Angela]], I went ahead and gave you admin bits on this wiki. Thanks for all your hard work here! -- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 20:50, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Thank you, I'll try to do my best :-) ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 21:05, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hi ==<br />
<br />
Tnx for contacting me, I'll get on it. [[User:Brainmachine|Brainmachine]] 09:02, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== I've updated Galician translation of the definition. ==<br />
<br />
What should I do to it to appear as reviewed? Thank you. --[[User:Gallaecio|Gallaecio]] 05:45, 3 January 2009 (EST)<br />
: Hello, Gallaecio. Thanks for notifying me, I [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Template%3ADefinition-langs&diff=5537&oldid=5349 added the link] to your translation to the template. Cheers, ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 10:45, 3 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Pages for deletion? ==<br />
<br />
There are two pages in [[:Category:Pages for deletion]], one of which has been there since Nov 2008. You may want to fix this. [[Special:Contributions/67.150.173.9|67.150.173.9]] (really, [[w:en:User:JesseW/not logged in]]) 16:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Done. [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=5785
Talk:Definition
2009-03-26T08:23:59Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 60.2.99.206 (Talk) to last version by Finnrind</p>
<hr />
<div>== 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 />
== 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 />
:: The cc-by still has a freaking load of text in it and this is a problem. The free software definition is licensed under "Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." that's ''it''. overkill is the right word. read [http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/texinfo/Verbatim-Copying-License.html#Verbatim-Copying-License this]. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<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)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: Upload not functional ==<br />
<br />
Make the uploaded files directory writable please, I cannot upload files. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:44, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Save It ==<br />
<br />
Can we save it to a music CD<br />
<br />
==Box at top==<br />
Should be (+ "a" or + "the" as the 3rd word):<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is a stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}} [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] 23:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:"the" added, thank you! [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 13:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: favicon ==<br />
<br />
Please add the logo as a favicon, it's hard to find this site between lots of tabs... --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 17:01, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Mako]] has added this. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 20:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Preamble for 1.1 ==<br />
<br />
I think in the 1.1 version we should try to rewrite the preamble in response to some of the feedback we've received. In particular:<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 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. <br />
<br />
This seems unnecessarily polemical and polarizing. We want to invite even those people to participate who utilize traditional copyright protections for some of their works. My preference would be to replace this entire paragraph with a more positive one about the power of sharing and collaboration. I don't think we need to take a pro-copyright stance in this definition, but I also don't think we need or want to take an anti-copyright one. Thoughts?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 22:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes Eric, [http://groups.google.co.nz/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/1fbba7c35655360e this is currently being discussed on the Wikieducator list] at the moment, but you are right to try and bring it here. My feeling is that the paragraph is so poor that it should be deleted immediately. Then you/we could build something up if it leaves a void. Personally I think the document is better without it all together, and is not diminished if nothing is there for a time. [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 15:07 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
:: I am an advocate of the free cultural works definition and have recently been directed to issues in the preamble of the definition in the WikiEducator discussion forums. The WikiEducator community have adopted the free cultural works definition and I think that the paragraph referred to below does not serve the interests of the definition. I propose that the following paragraph be deleted 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. 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.''" Having been on the receiving end of the FUD for many years, I appreciate and understand the sentiments expressed in the paragraph. Perhaps we should create an addendum containing further reading and key resources to articulate these concerns, but I don't think they should be included in the main body of the definition. <br />
--[[User:Mackiwg|Mackiwg]] 23:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus and take action on that paragraph...? [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 17:57 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
I've made an [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=prev&oldid=5059 edit] to [[Definition/Unstable]] per the above; feel free to revise further. If I don't hear anything back within the next week, I'm just going to do a quick 1.1 update myself.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Yes, neutral is better. I think this is the only part that can be considered biased, the rest looks fine. ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 15:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Updated.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:02, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Have further tweaked the Unstable version where I thought there were still unnecessary words, or confusing sentences. Hope to see them in the Definition at some stage. --[[User:Leighblackall|Leighblackall]] 21:35, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks so much for removing this. Now it's actually a neutral definition instead of advocacy. Maybe there's hope for the project after all. :) [[wikipedia:User:Omegatron/Non-free_content|Omegatron]] 14:27, 11 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Photos and their use ==<br />
<br />
As a photographer I am concerned with how my work is used. Now having said that I do fully understand the concept of creative commons and free cultural work and other "licenses" however the biggest issue I see is that "one size does not fit all". For example Creative Commons uses music/audio terms such as "remix" and in 30 years do taking photographs I have never once been asked if someone could "remix" my image. GFDL is meant for text - so using it for an image and saying "No Back cover text" does not fully apply.<br />
<br />
That being said the FCW license might work great for images with a few re-wording or clarifications. And these are suggestions, rough ones at that.<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 />
<br />
For images the word "perform" might be changed to "display". However for an image I feel "exceptions" should be considered. For example - a photographer takes an image in New Orleans lower ninth ward of an Afro-American who was killed during katrina and they release it "freely". Based upon the FCW "there must be no exception" so a user could re-purpose that image for use in a pro-Nazi poster. A CCL does have "fine print" that state the licensee can ''not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation'' which I think, in relations to images, is a good thing. Perhaps the FCW could change the wording of "There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations" to something along the lines of "There can be exceptions regarding, for example, exploitation or racist use" <br />
<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 />
<br />
I do not see any issues with this part as it would relate to images.<br />
<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 />
<br />
The concept is fine but it's execution in relation to an image might not fully work. Redistribution is fine. Adding to a collection is fine. Anyone can copy it is fine. Sales however is where you run into issues. Look at the "exception" issue(s) for an idea. If there were to be no restrictions on use there would be no doubt an image could be used in a manner it was never intended to be used and be used in that manner to make money. Again - perhaps in regards to images there could be a choice of the photographer to disallow use for hate "profit" (ie - use the image in pro-hate merchandise or literature). Likewise a religious group could take an image of someone dying and place it on a t-shirt saying "Aids Kills" and sell it. I fully believe that a photographer should be allowed some choice in how their image is used. <br />
<br />
''The freedom to distribute derivative works''<br />
<br />
Sort of a given with any of these "free" licenses. But perhaps in conjunction with any sort of image options as defined above this would slightly change what the "derivative work" could be used for. <br />
<br />
Probably most of this could be added in the [[Permissible restrictions]] section too. It would be good to hear other photographers input on this and have a discussion on ways to make this work. [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] 21:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Time scope and revocability of licenses, etc... ==<br />
<br />
The present definition is unclear concerning <br />
<br />
* Licenses allowing free use for a definite time scope (1 year only, 1 week only)<br />
<br />
* Licenses with a "for the time being", or "until revoked" clause.<br />
<br />
The only point where the present definition clearly rejects revocability is in connection with patents : ''should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and <u>irrevocable</u> royalty-free grant...'' but there is no such condition in connection with copyright.<br />
<br />
I suggest that future versions of the definition should address this concern. <br />
<br />
I have also questions concerning the space scope : what about non-worldwide, free-in-only-a-few-countries licenses ?<br />
<br />
[[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 04:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I made a small edit in the unstable version, to reflect this concern : ([http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=prev&oldid=5358 diff]). [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 04:48, 20 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Compare with the following statement in the definition of « free software » : ''In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.'' [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The Free Software Definition, by the Free Software Foundation]. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 20:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Permanent URLs ==<br />
<br />
This needs stable URLs fast. It is impossible to link to it from a legal document as long as the text can change at any time. [[Definition/1.0]] and [[Definition/1.1]] should contain unchanging texts, and so should [[Definition/1.0/de]] etc. And they should be referred from the header so readers realize [[Definition]] is not a stable text.<br />
<br />
(Also, could someone clean out the porn ads from the mailing list home page? Or at least remove the link to them from the site notice?) --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 04:00, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I don't know if this is what you need, but there is a "permanent link" in the toolbox, in the left margin. However, "The definition itself is not a license", so be careful not to use in a legal document as if it were a license. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 07:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The definition is inteded to be used in legal documents to define what kinds of licenses are acceptable. That's how the Wikimedia Foundation used it in their [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy licensing policy resolution], and IIRC this site was originally created as part of that resolution. And the link to this definition (which plays quite a fundamental role in the policy) now points to a different text than it did when the resolution was passed. Though it says explicitly 1.0, so the intention is clear there, but even if the reader does realise that he has been sent to the wrong page (whch does not exactly create an air of professionalism btw), he has no idea where to find the tight text. (Keep in mind that the intended target audience of this site goes much beyond the wiki world, so the reader is not neccessarily wiki-savvy.) When the wording of a document is less cautious and doesn't explicitly name the version, that could lead to even bigger problems. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 20:09, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Tgr, I got your point, you're right that separate versions should be uniquely accessed. This is an easy job to do, and you can help me if you please, as most of the pages are not protected. It is possible to find the precise version before the 1.0->1.1 update and copy it into a subpage, and then exchange links in order to have all readers informed. I will spend some time in the weekend... ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
: I am not able to help for the Korean translation only. I cannot recognize words "version" and "stable" in order to make a precise change in the wordings. For the latin and cyrillic languages, even for Greek, this was an easy job to do. ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 10:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=5784
Definition/Unstable
2009-03-26T08:22:20Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 74.125.75.17 (Talk) to last version by Spiritia</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 />
<br />
----<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document provides a definition of "Free Cultural Works" [the Definition], which are roughly works or expressions that can be freely studied, applied, copied and modified, by anyone and for any purpose. 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." This document also describes restrictions that respect or protect the freedoms of Free Cultural Works.<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' cultural works that can be represented in digital form. These works include artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, and articles. Many communities have formed to exercise these new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively reusable works.<br />
<br />
To encourage this growth in creativity, works of authorship should be '''free''' as in ''freedom'', where by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and to enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the work<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available <br />
* '''to anyone''';<br />
* '''anywhere''', i.e. worldwide;<br />
* '''anytime''', i.e. unlimited and irrevocable. <br />
<br />
They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used.<br />
<br />
If authors do not specify this freedom, their works are covered by existing copyright laws which default to All Rights Reserved. All Rights Reserved considerably limit what others can and cannot do with the work of others. Authors can make their works free by choosing among a number of legal documents known as licenses. For an author, choosing to put their work under a ''free license'' does not mean that they lose all their rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be 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 />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be actually free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain, or equivalent of.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than All Rights Reserved, or for works that are just "available on the Web", but they don't necessarily carry with them the freedoms referred to in this document.<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take rights away — they specify freedoms that are not included in a default copyright license such as All Rights Reserved. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following essential freedoms:<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. Neither may there be a limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work's 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. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a 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 or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights or being for non-commercial use only) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously 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 and should not be called "free." Works that either have no copyright (thus being in the public domain), or are licensed under a Free Culture License comply with these guidelines.<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 cultural works.<br />
* See [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_knowledge Wikipedia on Free/Libre Knowledge]<br />
* See [http://ictlogy.net/?p=12#fourkinds The Four Kinds of Freedom of Free Knowledge]<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>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=5755
Talk:Definition
2009-03-15T21:04:55Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 60.215.78.158 (Talk) to last version by Spiritia</p>
<hr />
<div>== 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 />
== 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 />
:: The cc-by still has a freaking load of text in it and this is a problem. The free software definition is licensed under "Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." that's ''it''. overkill is the right word. read [http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/texinfo/Verbatim-Copying-License.html#Verbatim-Copying-License this]. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<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)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: Upload not functional ==<br />
<br />
Make the uploaded files directory writable please, I cannot upload files. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:44, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Save It ==<br />
<br />
Can we save it to a music CD<br />
<br />
==Box at top==<br />
Should be (+ "a" or + "the" as the 3rd word):<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is a stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}} [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] 23:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:"the" added, thank you! [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 13:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: favicon ==<br />
<br />
Please add the logo as a favicon, it's hard to find this site between lots of tabs... --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 17:01, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Mako]] has added this. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 20:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Preamble for 1.1 ==<br />
<br />
I think in the 1.1 version we should try to rewrite the preamble in response to some of the feedback we've received. In particular:<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 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. <br />
<br />
This seems unnecessarily polemical and polarizing. We want to invite even those people to participate who utilize traditional copyright protections for some of their works. My preference would be to replace this entire paragraph with a more positive one about the power of sharing and collaboration. I don't think we need to take a pro-copyright stance in this definition, but I also don't think we need or want to take an anti-copyright one. Thoughts?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 22:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes Eric, [http://groups.google.co.nz/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/1fbba7c35655360e this is currently being discussed on the Wikieducator list] at the moment, but you are right to try and bring it here. My feeling is that the paragraph is so poor that it should be deleted immediately. Then you/we could build something up if it leaves a void. Personally I think the document is better without it all together, and is not diminished if nothing is there for a time. [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 15:07 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
:: I am an advocate of the free cultural works definition and have recently been directed to issues in the preamble of the definition in the WikiEducator discussion forums. The WikiEducator community have adopted the free cultural works definition and I think that the paragraph referred to below does not serve the interests of the definition. I propose that the following paragraph be deleted 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. 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.''" Having been on the receiving end of the FUD for many years, I appreciate and understand the sentiments expressed in the paragraph. Perhaps we should create an addendum containing further reading and key resources to articulate these concerns, but I don't think they should be included in the main body of the definition. <br />
--[[User:Mackiwg|Mackiwg]] 23:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus and take action on that paragraph...? [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 17:57 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
I've made an [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=prev&oldid=5059 edit] to [[Definition/Unstable]] per the above; feel free to revise further. If I don't hear anything back within the next week, I'm just going to do a quick 1.1 update myself.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Yes, neutral is better. I think this is the only part that can be considered biased, the rest looks fine. ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 15:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Updated.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:02, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Have further tweaked the Unstable version where I thought there were still unnecessary words, or confusing sentences. Hope to see them in the Definition at some stage. --[[User:Leighblackall|Leighblackall]] 21:35, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks so much for removing this. Now it's actually a neutral definition instead of advocacy. Maybe there's hope for the project after all. :) [[wikipedia:User:Omegatron/Non-free_content|Omegatron]] 14:27, 11 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Photos and their use ==<br />
<br />
As a photographer I am concerned with how my work is used. Now having said that I do fully understand the concept of creative commons and free cultural work and other "licenses" however the biggest issue I see is that "one size does not fit all". For example Creative Commons uses music/audio terms such as "remix" and in 30 years do taking photographs I have never once been asked if someone could "remix" my image. GFDL is meant for text - so using it for an image and saying "No Back cover text" does not fully apply.<br />
<br />
That being said the FCW license might work great for images with a few re-wording or clarifications. And these are suggestions, rough ones at that.<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 />
<br />
For images the word "perform" might be changed to "display". However for an image I feel "exceptions" should be considered. For example - a photographer takes an image in New Orleans lower ninth ward of an Afro-American who was killed during katrina and they release it "freely". Based upon the FCW "there must be no exception" so a user could re-purpose that image for use in a pro-Nazi poster. A CCL does have "fine print" that state the licensee can ''not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation'' which I think, in relations to images, is a good thing. Perhaps the FCW could change the wording of "There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations" to something along the lines of "There can be exceptions regarding, for example, exploitation or racist use" <br />
<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 />
<br />
I do not see any issues with this part as it would relate to images.<br />
<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 />
<br />
The concept is fine but it's execution in relation to an image might not fully work. Redistribution is fine. Adding to a collection is fine. Anyone can copy it is fine. Sales however is where you run into issues. Look at the "exception" issue(s) for an idea. If there were to be no restrictions on use there would be no doubt an image could be used in a manner it was never intended to be used and be used in that manner to make money. Again - perhaps in regards to images there could be a choice of the photographer to disallow use for hate "profit" (ie - use the image in pro-hate merchandise or literature). Likewise a religious group could take an image of someone dying and place it on a t-shirt saying "Aids Kills" and sell it. I fully believe that a photographer should be allowed some choice in how their image is used. <br />
<br />
''The freedom to distribute derivative works''<br />
<br />
Sort of a given with any of these "free" licenses. But perhaps in conjunction with any sort of image options as defined above this would slightly change what the "derivative work" could be used for. <br />
<br />
Probably most of this could be added in the [[Permissible restrictions]] section too. It would be good to hear other photographers input on this and have a discussion on ways to make this work. [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] 21:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Time scope and revocability of licenses, etc... ==<br />
<br />
The present definition is unclear concerning <br />
<br />
* Licenses allowing free use for a definite time scope (1 year only, 1 week only)<br />
<br />
* Licenses with a "for the time being", or "until revoked" clause.<br />
<br />
The only point where the present definition clearly rejects revocability is in connection with patents : ''should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and <u>irrevocable</u> royalty-free grant...'' but there is no such condition in connection with copyright.<br />
<br />
I suggest that future versions of the definition should address this concern. <br />
<br />
I have also questions concerning the space scope : what about non-worldwide, free-in-only-a-few-countries licenses ?<br />
<br />
[[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 04:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I made a small edit in the unstable version, to reflect this concern : ([http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=prev&oldid=5358 diff]). [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 04:48, 20 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Compare with the following statement in the definition of « free software » : ''In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.'' [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The Free Software Definition, by the Free Software Foundation]. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 20:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Permanent URLs ==<br />
<br />
This needs stable URLs fast. It is impossible to link to it from a legal document as long as the text can change at any time. [[Definition/1.0]] and [[Definition/1.1]] should contain unchanging texts, and so should [[Definition/1.0/de]] etc. And they should be referred from the header so readers realize [[Definition]] is not a stable text.<br />
<br />
(Also, could someone clean out the porn ads from the mailing list home page? Or at least remove the link to them from the site notice?) --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 04:00, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I don't know if this is what you need, but there is a "permanent link" in the toolbox, in the left margin. However, "The definition itself is not a license", so be careful not to use in a legal document as if it were a license. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 07:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The definition is inteded to be used in legal documents to define what kinds of licenses are acceptable. That's how the Wikimedia Foundation used it in their [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy licensing policy resolution], and IIRC this site was originally created as part of that resolution. And the link to this definition (which plays quite a fundamental role in the policy) now points to a different text than it did when the resolution was passed. Though it says explicitly 1.0, so the intention is clear there, but even if the reader does realise that he has been sent to the wrong page (whch does not exactly create an air of professionalism btw), he has no idea where to find the tight text. (Keep in mind that the intended target audience of this site goes much beyond the wiki world, so the reader is not neccessarily wiki-savvy.) When the wording of a document is less cautious and doesn't explicitly name the version, that could lead to even bigger problems. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 20:09, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Tgr, I got your point, you're right that separate versions should be uniquely accessed. This is an easy job to do, and you can help me if you please, as most of the pages are not protected. It is possible to find the precise version before the 1.0->1.1 update and copy it into a subpage, and then exchange links in order to have all readers informed. I will spend some time in the weekend... ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
: I am not able to help for the Korean translation only. I cannot recognize words "version" and "stable" in order to make a precise change in the wordings. For the latin and cyrillic languages, even for Greek, this was an easy job to do. ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 10:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanitimci&diff=5754
User talk:Tanitimci
2009-03-15T21:04:29Z
<p>Finnrind: rm linkspam</p>
<hr />
<div>Farklı açılardan, farklı yaratışımlar.</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Translations&diff=5753
Talk:Translations
2009-03-15T21:02:25Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by Tanitimci (Talk) to last version by Spiritia</p>
<hr />
<div>==Process==<br />
So, since moderators/Erik should be contacted when a translation is considered finished... what will happen to it then? // [[User:Habj|habj]] 11:56, 27 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
==Other pages==<br />
Hi, should all pages be translated? I mean pages like licenses, permissible restrictions, etc. --'''[[User:Kjoonlee|Kjoon]]'''[[User talk:Kjoonlee|lee]] 15:06, 10 April 2008 (EDT)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Authoring_process&diff=5367
Authoring process
2008-11-22T18:30:13Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 82.208.254.128 (Talk); changed back to last version by Finnrind</p>
<hr />
<div>The process for maintaining and updating the [[Definition]] itself is simple:<br />
* Make your desired changes to [[Definition/Unstable]]. If you are uncertain, you can suggest changes on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]] first.<br />
* If the changes are minor (typos, errors, etc.), you can directly notify [[moderators|a moderator]], and he will update the stable version.<br />
* Otherwise, it is always a good idea to explain what you have done on the discussion page, and to wait for consensus to develop.<br />
* Only if a consensus is visible, the stable version will be updated.<br />
<br />
But what if a consensus cannot be found about a change? Then, more frequently than not, the change will not be made. The wiki experience shows that consensus can often be achieved in small groups. Should there, however, be a very clear split between two groups, either in its emotionality or in the number of people involved, it may be desirable to call for a vote. In that case, all contributors who have made meaningful edits to the definition (stable or unstable) will be eligible to vote. The voting method used will normally be [[w:approval voting|approval voting]], except in cases of simple yes/no votes.<br />
<br />
Extreme changes which are counter to the philosophy with which this definition was started can be vetoed by the [[moderators]] as a last resort.<br />
<br />
Other pages in this wiki are free for anyone to edit without special procedures; this may change over time for selected pages, but in general, we will try to keep this wiki as open as possible.</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=4690
Licenses
2008-07-22T13:08:21Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 151.54.123.91 (Talk); changed back to last version by 82.51.141.142</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}}<br />
| Exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution|Creative Commons Attribution]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<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 />
| {{yes}}<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 />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Exact translations (French law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Unknown (license text is German)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| Software<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<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 (TPM). 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, 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 />
=== Access control prohibition ===<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 />
=== 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''<ref></ref><br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
<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: 1.2<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>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses/CC-BY-2.5&diff=4689
Licenses/CC-BY-2.5
2008-07-22T13:07:35Z
<p>Finnrind: link already there: Undo revision 4682 by 193.85.151.2 (Talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:Licenses/CC-BY}}<br />
<br />
== Legal code ==<br />
<br />
This work is licensed under version 2.5 of the Creative Commons CC-BY license. The above human readable summary does not constitute an actual grant of license; please review http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode for the legal code of the license.</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=4678
Licenses
2008-07-16T21:06:51Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 80.182.94.113 (Talk); changed back to last version by Angela Beesley</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}}<br />
| Exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution|Creative Commons Attribution]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations <br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike|Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<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 />
| [[#Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License|Do What The F* You Want To Public License]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]<br />
| Works of art<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Exact translations (French law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Unknown (license text is German)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| Software<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<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 (TPM). 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, 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 />
=== Access control prohibition ===<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 />
=== 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''<ref></ref><br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
<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: 1.2<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>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon&diff=4673
MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon
2008-07-14T18:07:45Z
<p>Finnrind: cross-wiki</p>
<hr />
<div>{| id="anontalktext" class="plainlinks" style="font-size:90%; background-color:#F8F8F8; border: 1px solid #B8B8B8; padding:0.25em 1em; clear:both; text-align:center; width:100%;"<br />
| style="padding-right:1em;" | || <span style="white-space:nowrap;">[http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user={{urlencode:$1}}&blocks=true&lang=en Cross-wiki contributions + blocks]</span><br />
|}</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Authoring_process&diff=4672
Authoring process
2008-07-14T18:02:58Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 92.42.51.244 (Talk); changed back to last version by Angela Beesley</p>
<hr />
<div>The process for maintaining and updating the [[Definition]] itself is simple:<br />
* Make your desired changes to [[Definition/Unstable]]. If you are uncertain, you can suggest changes on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]] first.<br />
* If the changes are minor (typos, errors, etc.), you can directly notify [[moderators|a moderator]], and he will update the stable version.<br />
* Otherwise, it is always a good idea to explain what you have done on the discussion page, and to wait for consensus to develop.<br />
* Only if a consensus is visible, the stable version will be updated.<br />
<br />
But what if a consensus cannot be found about a change? Then, more frequently than not, the change will not be made. The wiki experience shows that consensus can often be achieved in small groups. Should there, however, be a very clear split between two groups, either in its emotionality or in the number of people involved, it may be desirable to call for a vote. In that case, all contributors who have made meaningful edits to the definition (stable or unstable) will be eligible to vote. The voting method used will normally be [[w:approval voting|approval voting]], except in cases of simple yes/no votes.<br />
<br />
Extreme changes which are counter to the philosophy with which this definition was started can be vetoed by the [[moderators]] as a last resort.<br />
<br />
Other pages in this wiki are free for anyone to edit without special procedures; this may change over time for selected pages, but in general, we will try to keep this wiki as open as possible.</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Focusdisplay&diff=4667
User talk:Focusdisplay
2008-07-12T10:42:07Z
<p>Finnrind: lagre</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi Focusdisplay, please do not upload images advertising your products or site here. This site is only about the [[definition]]. Your uploads have been deleted. Regards, [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 06:42, 12 July 2008 (EDT)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses/CC-BY-2.5&diff=4666
Licenses/CC-BY-2.5
2008-07-12T10:39:21Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 77.93.211.11 (Talk); changed back to last version by Angela Beesley</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:Licenses/CC-BY}}<br />
<br />
== Legal code ==<br />
<br />
This work is licensed under version 2.5 of the Creative Commons CC-BY license. The above human readable summary does not constitute an actual grant of license; please review http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode for the legal code of the license.</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=4615
Licenses
2008-07-02T21:25:22Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 74.225.148.252 (Talk); changed back to last version by Finnrind</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}}<br />
| Exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution|Creative Commons Attribution]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations <br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike|Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<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 />
| [[#Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License|Do What The F* You Want To Public License]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Exact translations (French law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Unknown (license text is German)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| Software<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<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 (TPM.) 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 />
=== Access control prohibition ===<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 />
=== 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''<ref></ref><br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
<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: 1.2<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>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Nb&diff=4605
Definition/Nb
2008-07-01T17:41:20Z
<p>Finnrind: Undo revision 4604 by 203.17.215.98 (Talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sammendrag ==<br />
Dette dokumentet definerer «frie kulturelle verker» (''free cultural works'') som verk eller uttrykk som fritt kan studeres, brukes, kopieres og/eller endres av hvem som helst, til hvilket formål som helst. Det beskriver også visse akseptable begrensninger, som tar hensyn til eller beskytter disse grunnleggende friheter. Definisjonen skiller mellom ''frie verk'' og ''[[Licenses|frie lisenser]]'', som kan brukes for å beskytte et fritt verks juridiske status. Definisjonen er ''ikke'' en lisens i seg selv; den er et verktøy for å bestemme om et verk eller en lisens skal betraktes som «fri».<br />
<br />
== Innledning ==<br />
Sosiale og teknologiske framsteg gjør det mulig for en voksende del av menneskeheten til å ''ha tilgang til'', ''skape'', ''forandre'' og ''publisere'' ulike typer arbeider – kunstverk, forsknings- og utdanningsmateriell, programvare og artikler. Kort sagt: ''alt som kan representeres i digital form''. Mange sammenslutninger og fellesskap har blitt skapt for å utøve disse nye mulighetene og skape en stor mengde kollektivt gjenbrukbare verk.<br />
<br />
Uansett hvilke felter de virker innen, og uansett status som amatør eller profesjonell, har de fleste opphavsmenn en sann interesse av å foretrekke et økosystem der verk kan spres, gjenbrukes og bearbeides på kreative måter. Jo lettere det er å gjenbruke og bearbeide et verk, jo rikere blir våre kulturer.<br />
<br />
For å forsikre om at dette økosystemet fungerer smidig bør opphavsmennenes verk være '''frie'''. Med ''frihet'' menes her:<br />
*'''friheten til å bruke''' verket, og nyte fordelene av å bruke det<br />
*'''frihet til å studere''' verket, og bruke kunnskapen som er tilegnet ved hjelp av det<br />
*'''frihet til å skape og spre flere utgaver''' fullstendig eller delvis, av informasjonen eller uttrykket<br />
*'''frihet til å endre og forbedre''' verket, og å spre det forbedrede verket videre<br />
<br />
Disse frihetene burde være tilgjengelige for alle, hvor som helst og når som helst. De burde ikke begrenses av hvilken sammenheng verket brukes i. Kreativitet er handlingen i å bruke en eksisterende ressurs på en måte ingen tidligere hadde tenkt på.<br />
<br />
I de fleste land opprettholdes imidlertid ikke disse frihetene. I stedet undertrykkes de av lover som vanligvis kalles ''opphavsrettslover''. De betrakter opphavspersonene som gudelignende skapere, og gir dem et eksklusivt monopol over hvordan «deres materiell» kan gjenbrukes. Denne eneretten hindrer kulturen i å blomstre, og hjelper ikke opphavspersonenes økonomi i like stor grad som den beskytter de mektigste forlag- og produksjonsselskapenes firmamodell.<br />
<br />
Til tross for disse lovene kan opphavspersoner gjøre sine verk frie gjennom å velge blant en mangfold av juridiske dokumenter kalt [[License|frie lisenser]]. Når en opphavsperson velger å slippe sitt verk under en ''fri lisens'' innebærer det ikke at denne mister sine rettigheter til det, men gir alle andre de frihetene som listes opp ovenfor.<br />
<br />
Det er viktig at verk som hevdes å være frie i praksis og uten risiko tilbyr de nevnte frihetene. Det er derfor vi nedenfor gir en eksakt '''definisjon av frihet''' for lisenser og for verk.<br />
<br />
== Å definere verk som frie ==<br />
Dette er en ''definisjon av frie kulturelle verk''. Vi oppmuntrer opphavspersoner som beskriver sine verk til å henvise til denne definisjonen som «Dette er et fritt lisensiert verk, slik det beskrives i ''Definisjonen av frie kulturelle verk''». Om man ikke liker begrepet «frie kulturelle verk» kan man bruke det mer generelle begrepet «fritt innhold», eller henvise til en av de [[Existing Movements|eksisterende bevegelsene]] som beskriver lignende friheter i mer spesifikke sammenhenger. Vi oppfordrer også til å bruke noen av de opphavsrettsfrie [[Logos and buttons|logoene og knappene for frie kulturelle verk]].<br />
<br />
Man skal være oppmerksom på at en slik beskrivelse ''ikke'' gir de rettighetene som beskrives i denne definisjonen. For at et verk skal kunne være helt fritt må det benytte en av de frie [[Licenses|kulturlisensene]], eller alternativt ikke dekkes av opphavsrett (utløpt vernetid eller at opphavspersonen dediserer verket som "offentlig eiendom", dvs. fraskriver seg alle de opphavsrettighetene som han eller hun kan fraskrive seg i sin jurisdiksjon (eller i den jurisdiksjonen han/hun velger å frisette verket i)).<br />
<br />
Vi fraråder å bruke andre begreper for å identifisere frie kulturelle verk, som ikke gir en klar definisjon av frihet. Eksempler på slike er ''åpent innhold'' (Open Content) og ''fri tilgang'' (Open access). Disse begrepene brukes ofte for å referere til innhold som er tilgjengelig under «mindre restriktive» krav enn de eksisterende opphavsrettslovene, eller for verk som er «tilgjengelige på Internett».<br />
<br />
== Definisjon av frie kulturelle lisenser ==<br />
Lisenser er juridiske instrumenter som gjør det mulig for eieren av et verk å overføre sine rettigheter til andre. Frie kulturelle lisenser fjerner ikke rettigheter – det er alltid valgfritt å godkjenne dem, og om de godkjennes, gir de friheter som opphavsrettslover i seg selv ikke gir. <em>Når en slik lisens aksepteres av brukeren, innebærer ikke denne aksepten at eksisterende<br />
unntak, avgrensninger eller friheter som brukeren har etter loven blir redusert eller begrenset. Altså, brukeren mister ingen av de rettighetene han eller hun<br />
allerede har fra før.</em><br />
<br />
=== Grunnleggende friheter ===<br />
For at en lisens skal betraktes som fri ifølge denne definisjonen, må den uten begrensninger oppfylle følgende kriterier:<br />
<br />
*'''Friheten til å bruke og framføre verket:''' Brukeren må tillates å bruke verket på alle måter både privat og offentlig. For de typer verk der dette er relevant burde denne friheten inkludere all avledet bruk («relaterte rettigheter»), som framføring eller tolkning av verket. Det må ikke være unntak for for eksempel religiøse eller politiske interesser.<br />
*'''Friheten til å studere verket og bruke informasjonen:''' Brukeren må tillates å studere verket og bruke kunnskapen hentet fra verket på en hvilken som helst måte. Lisensen kan for eksempel ikke hindre «reverse engineering».<br />
*'''Friheten til å spre verket i flere eksemplarer:''' Kopier skal kunne selges, byttes eller gis bort gratis, både som del av et større verk, i en samling eller selvstendig. Det må ikke være noen begrensning på mengden informasjon som kan kopieres. Det må heller ikke finnes begrensninger på hvem som kan kopiere informasjonen eller hvor den kan kopieres.<br />
*'''Friheten til å spre bearbeidinger av verket:''' For å gi alle muligheten til å spre et verk, må ikke lisensen begrense friheten til å spre modifiserte utgaver (eller, for fysiske verk, et verk som på en eller annen måte er derivert fra originalen), uavhengig av hvilken hensikt forandringene har. Visse restriksjoner kan imidlertid tas i bruk for å beskytte disse grunnleggende rettighetene eller for å bevare opphavspersonens ideelle rettigheter (se nedenfor).<br />
<br />
=== Akseptable begrensninger ===<br />
Ikke alle innskrenkninger som gjelder bruk eller spredning av verket hindrer de grunnleggende frihetene. Spesielt anses krav til å erkjenne opphavsmannen, for «symmetrisk samarbeid» (dvs. copyleft) og til å beskytte de grunnleggende frihetene som [[Permissible restrictions|akseptable begrensninger]].<br />
<br />
== Definisjon av frie kulturelle verk ==<br />
For at verk skal anses som frie, ''må'' de enten legges under en fri kulturell lisens, eller så ''må'' deres juridiske status tillate de samme grunnleggende frihetene som foreskrives ovenfor. Dette kravet er imidlertid ikke tilstrekkelig for å regne verket som fritt. Et spesifikt verk kan være ufritt på andre måter som begrenser de grunnleggende frihetene. Dette er de ytterlige kravene som må oppfylles for å regne et verk som fritt:<br />
<br />
*'''Tilgjengelig kildedata:''' Når et verk er oppnådd gjennom samling eller prosessering av én eller flere kildefiler, burde all tilgjengelig kildedata også være tilgjengelig sammen med verket under samme forutsetninger. Dette kan være notene til et musikkstykke, modeller brukt for scenografi, data for vitenskapelige skrifter, kildekode til dataprogrammer eller annen lignende informasjon.<br />
*'''Bruk av et fritt format:''' For digitale filer, burde formatet verket gjøres tilgjengelig på ikke omfattes av patenter, med mindre en verdensomfattende, ubegrenset og ugjenkallelig royalty-fri tillatelse til å bruke den patenterte teknikken er gitt. Ufrie format finnes iblant av praktiske grunner, men et eksempler i et fritt format ''må'' være tilgjengelig for å regne verket som fritt.<br />
*'''Ingen tekniske begrensninger:''' Verket må være tilgjengelig i en form der ingen tekniske hindre brukes for å begrense frihetene som foreskrives ovenfor.<br />
*'''Ingen andre begrensninger:''' Verket må i seg selv ikke dekkes av juridiske restriksjoner (patenter, kontrakter, etc.) eller begrensninger (som personvernsrettigheter) som kan hindre frihetene som foreskrives ovenfor. Et verk kan ta i bruk eksisterende juridiske unntak (for å sitere opphavsbeskyttede verk), men kun de deler av det som er utvetydig frie utgjør et fritt verk.<br />
<br />
Med andre ord: Når den som bruker et verk ikke juridisk eller praktisk kan utøve sine grunnleggende rettigheter, kan ikke verket anses for, og bør ikke kalles for «fritt».<br />
<br />
== Ytterligere lesing ==<br />
*[[Licenses|Lisenser]] (engelsk). Diskusjon rundt individuelle lisenser og hvorvidt de stemmer overens med denne definisjonen.<br />
*[[History|Historikk]] (engelsk). Informasjon om denne sidens opphavspersoner og bakgrunn.<br />
*[[FAQ|OSS]] (engelsk). Spørsmål og svar.<br />
*[[Portal:Index|Portal:Indeks]] (engelsk). Emnespesifikke sider om frie kulturelle verk.<br />
<br />
== Versjoner ==<br />
Nye versjoner av denne definisjonen vil slippes så snart det er konsensus (direkte eller gjennom avstemning, i forhold til [[authoring process|skribentprosessen]]) har blitt oppnådd rundt foreslåtte endringer. Nummereringen vil bli 0.x for utkast, 1.x, 2.x, osv. for større forandringer, x..1, x.2, osv. for mindre endringer. En mindre endring innebærer at teksten endres på en måte som ikke påvirker de eksisterende eller hypotetiske lisensene som omfattes av denne definisjonen.</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Bg&diff=4603
Definition/Bg
2008-06-30T23:40:21Z
<p>Finnrind: Undo revision 4602 by 88.245.49.8 (Talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|Това е превод на стабилната версия '''1.0''' на дефиницията. Номерът на версията ще се обнови, когато дефиницията претърпи развитие. Версия за редактиране може да се намери на страницата [[Definition/Unstable]]. За повече информация вижте упътване за [[authoring process|авторския процес]], както и страницата с [[translations|преводи]], ако желаете да допринесете с версия на вашия език.}}<br />
<br />
== Резюме ==<br />
<br />
Този документ дефинира „Свободни произведения на културата“ (Free Cultural Works) като произведения или форми на изразяване, които могат да бъдат свободно изучавани, прилагани, копирани и/или променяни, от всекиго и за всякаква цел. Документът още описва определени допустими ограничения, които зачитат или защитават тези четири основни свободи. Дефиницията прави разлика между ''свободни творби'' и ''[[licenses|свободни лицензи]]'', които могат да се използват за правна защита на статута на една свободна творба. Дефиницията сама по себе си ''не'' е лиценз; тя е средството, с което може да се определи дали дадена творба или лиценз могат да се възприемат като „свободни“.<br />
<br />
== Преамбюл ==<br />
<br />
Социалният и технологичен прогрес прави възможно за все по-голяма част от човечеството да ''има достъп, да създава, променя, публикува и разпространява'' разнообразни творби — произведения на изкуството, научни и образователни материали, софтуер, статии — на кратко: ''всичко, което може да се представи в цифров вид''. Сформират се много общности, които се възползват от тези нови възможности и създават съкровищници от колективно и многократно използваеми творби.<br />
<br />
Повечето автори, без значение от сферата на дейността си или статута си на аматьори или професионалисти, имат искрения интерес да се благоприятства една екосистема, в която творбите могат да се разпространяват, многократно използват и променят по творчески начини. Колкото по-лесно е творбите да се използват повторно и да се правят техни производни, толкова по-богати стават нашите култури. <br />
<br />
За да се осигури гладкото функциониране на тази екосистема, авторските произведения е необходимо да бъдат '''свободни''', като под ''свобода'' се има предвид:<br />
* '''свободата да се ползва''' произведението и да се извлича изгода от неговата употреба,<br />
* '''свободата да се изучава''' произведението и да се прилагат знанията, придобити от него,<br />
* '''свободата да се правят и разпространяват копия''' на информацията или идеята на произведението, изцяло или в някаква негова част,<br />
* '''свободата да се правят промени и подобрения''' и тези производни работи да се разпространяват.<br />
<br />
Упражняването на тези четири свободи трябва да е достъпно за всекиго, навсякъде и по всяко време. Те не трябва да бъдат ограничавани по отношение на контекста, в който творбата се използва. Творческото начало бележи действията по употреба на съществуващ ресурс по начин, който не е прилаган до този момент.<br />
<br />
В повечето държави обаче тези свободи не се подкрепят, а се потъпкват от закони, обикновено наричани ''закони за авторското право''. Те разглеждат авторите като богоподобни създания и им дават изключителен монопол да определят как да се използва „тяхното съдържание“. Този монопол възпрепятства разцвета на културата и дори не допринася за финансовото благополучие на авторите толкова, колкото покровителства бизнес модела на най-мощните издателски компании.<br />
<br />
Въпреки тези закони, авторите могат да освобождават произведенията си, като избират между огромен набор от правни документи, известни като [[w:license|свободни лицензи]]. За един автор, изборът да отдаде творбата си под ''свободен лиценз'' не означава той да изгуби всичките си права, а да даде на всекиго четирите свободи, описани по-горе.<br />
<br />
Важно е всяко произведение, което претендира да бъде свободно, да предоставя тези свободи на практика и без какъвто и да е правен риск. Ето защо по-надолу следва прецизна '''дефиниция на свободата''' за лицензи и авторски произведения.<br />
<br />
== Идентифициране на Свободни произведения на културата ==<br />
<br />
Това е ''Определението на Свободни произведения на културата''. Насърчаваме ви да препращате към нея, когато описвате вашето произведение, например „Това е творба под свободен лиценз, според ''Определението на Свободни произведения на културата''.“ Ако не харесвате термина „Свободно произведение на културата“, можете да използвате родовия термин „Свободно съдържание“ или да се отнесете към някое от [[Existing Movements|съществуващите движения]], които изразяват подобни свободи в по-специфични контексти. Също така ви насърчаваме да използвате [[logos and buttons|логата и бутоните]], които са в сферата на общественото достояние.<br />
<br />
Трябва да имате предвид, че идентификацията на едно произведение като Свободно произведение на културата ''не удостоява фактически правата'', описани в тази дефиниция; за да бъде творбата ви истински свободна, тя трябва да е лицензирана под някой от [[Licenses|Лицензите на свободната култура]] или да бъде в сферата на общественото достояние.<br />
<br />
Не ви съветваме да идентифицирате Свободните произведения на културата с други термини, които не дават ясно определение на свободата, като например „Отворено съдържание“ и „Отворен достъп“. Тези термини често се използват за съдържание, което е достъпно под „по-малко ограничителни“ условия от тези на съществуващите закони за авторското право, или дори за произведения, които просто са „достъпни в Мрежата“.<br />
<br />
== Дефиниране на Лицензи на свободната култура ==<br />
<br />
Лицензите са правни инструменти, чрез които носителят на определени юридически права може да прехвърли тези права на трети страни. Лицензите на свободната култура (Free Culture Licenses) не отнемат права — не е задължително да бъдат приемани, а ако бъдат — те официално дават свободи, които законите за авторското право сами по себе си не могат да предложат. Приемането им не ограничава или намалява правната сила на съществуващите изключения в законите за авторското право.<br />
<br />
=== Основни свободи ===<br />
<br />
За да бъде припознат като „свободен“ по силата на тази дефиниция, един лиценз трябва да предоставя следните свободи без ограничение:<br />
<br />
* '''Свободата за използване и изпълнение на произведението:''' Лицензополучателят трябва да има разрешение да използва произведението за всякаква цел, частна или обществена. Когато е приложимо за съответните видове произведения, тази свобода включва всички произтичащи видове употреба („свързани права“) като изпълнение или интерпретация на творбата. Не могат да се правят изключения, свързани например с политически или религиозни съображения.<br />
* '''Свободата да се изучава творбата и да се прилага информацията от нея:''' Лицензополучателят трябва да има разрешение да изследва творбата и да прилага по всякакъв начин знанието, придобито от нея. Лицензът не може да поставя ограничения, например пред обратното инженерство (т.нар. ''reverse engineering'', например декомпилирането на програма с цел извличане програмния код или част от него).<br />
* '''Свободата на свой ред да се разпространяват копия:''' Копията могат да се продават, разменят или подаряват, да се разпространяват като част от по-голямо произведение, колекция или самостоятелно. Не може да има ограничение над количеството информация, което може да бъде копирано. Не може да има ограничения над това кой и къде извършва копирането на информацията.<br />
* '''Свободата за разпространение на производни работи:''' С цел на всекиго да се даде възможност да подобрява творбата, лицензът не може да ограничава свободата за разпространение на нейна променена версия (или за физически обекти: обект по някакъв начин производен на оригинала), без значение от намерението и целта на промяната. Все пак, могат да се приложат някои ограничения с цел защита на тези основни свободи или признанието на авторството на създателите.<br />
<br />
=== Допустими ограничения ===<br />
<br />
Не всички ограничения върху употребата или разпространението на творбите възпрепятствят основните свободи. В частност, за допустими ограничения се смятат изискването за признание, за симетрично сътрудничество (т.е. „копилефт“) и за опазването на основните свободи.<br />
<br />
== Дефиниране на Свободни произведения на културата ==<br />
<br />
За да се смята за свободно, едно произведение ''трябва'' да бъде защитено с Лиценз на свободната култура, или правният му статут ''трябва'' да предоставя същите ''основни свободи'', изброени по-горе. Това обаче не е достатъчно условие, тъй като е възможно дадена творба да бъде несвободна по други начини, които ограничават основните свободи. Следните допълнителните условия трябва да са изпълнени, за да се смята една творба за свободна:<br />
<br />
* '''Достъп до програмния код:''' В случаите, когато окончателен продукт се получава след компилация или друга обработка на един или повече файлове с програмен код, тези файлове трябва да се предоставят наред с окончателния продукт, лицензирани под същите условия. Може да става дума за програмен код на компютърно приложение, нотен запис на музикална композиция, модели използвани в 3D-анимация или всякаква друга подобна информация.<br />
* '''Употреба на свободен формат:''' За цифрови файлове, форматът, в който се предоставя творбата, не трябва да бъде защитен с патенти, освен ако съществува неограничено и неотменимо разрешение в световен мащаб за безплатно използване на патентованата технология. В случаите, когато несвободни формати се използват от практически съображения, произведението се смята за свободно само ако се предостави достъп и до копие в свободен формат.<br />
* '''Липса на технически ограничения:''' Произведението трябва да се предостави във форма, при която никакви технически мерки не могат да ограничат свободите, описани по-горе.<br />
* '''Липса на други ограничения:''' Самата творба не може да бъде защитена от правни (патенти, договори, и т.н.) или други ограничения (като право на защита на личните данни), които могат да накърнят изброените по-горе свободи. Една творба може да се възползва от изключенията в законите за авторското право (с цел да цитира творби със запазени авторски права), но въпреки това само частите от творбата, които са недвусмислено свободни представляват свободна творба.<br />
<br />
С други думи, в случаите, когато потребител на творбата не може законно или практически да упражнява своите основни свободи, творбата не може да бъде смятана и наричана „свободна“.<br />
<br />
== За допълнителна информация ==<br />
<br />
* Вижте страницата [[Licenses|Лицензи]] (англ.), където са дискутирани отделните лицензи и дали те отговарят на това определение или не.<br />
* Вижте страницата [[History|История]] (англ.) за благодарности и предисторията на това определение.<br />
* Вижте [[FAQ|Често задаваните въпроси]] (англ.) за някои въпроси и отговори.<br />
* Вижте страницата [[Portal:Index]] за специфични страници по темата за свободните произведения на културата.<br />
<br />
== Версии ==<br />
<br />
Нови версии на тази дефиниция ще бъдат обнародвани в момента, в който се постигне консенсус (при обсъждания или гласуване в [[authoring process|процеса на създаване]]) относно предложени промени. Номерацията ще бъде 0.x за първоначалния чернови вариант, 1.x, 2.x и т.н. за версии, съдържащи съществени промени, x.1, x.2 и т.н. за версии, съдържащи второстепенни промени. Такава версия е налице, когато промените по текста нямат отражение върху обхвата на съществуващите или хипотетичните лицензи, които включва тази дефиниция.<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=4601
Talk:Definition
2008-06-29T22:33:34Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 78.167.19.254 (Talk); changed back to last version by Finnrind</p>
<hr />
<div>== 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)<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 />
:: The cc-by still has a freaking load of text in it and this is a problem. The free software definition is licensed under "Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." that's ''it''. overkill is the right word. read [http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/texinfo/Verbatim-Copying-License.html#Verbatim-Copying-License this]. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<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)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: Upload not functional ==<br />
<br />
Make the uploaded files directory writable please, I cannot upload files. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:44, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Save It ==<br />
<br />
Can we save it to a music CD<br />
<br />
==Box at top==<br />
Should be (+ "a" or + "the" as the 3rd word):<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is a stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}} [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] 23:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:"the" added, thank you! [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 13:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=4590
Licenses
2008-06-27T21:02:51Z
<p>Finnrind: /* Do What The F* You Want To Public License */ rm wtf</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}}<br />
| Exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution|Creative Commons Attribution]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations <br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike|Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<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 />
| [[#Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License|Do What The F* You Want To Public License]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Exact translations (French law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Unknown (license text is German)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| Software<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<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 (TPM.) 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 />
=== Access control prohibition ===<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 />
=== 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''<ref></ref><br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
<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: 1.2<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>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&diff=4589
Licenses
2008-06-27T21:01:48Z
<p>Finnrind: revert to Revision as of 15:24, 19 June 2008 by 130.226.70.192 (Talk | block)</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}}<br />
| Exact translations<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution|Creative Commons Attribution]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| National adaptations <br />
|-<br />
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike|Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<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 />
| [[#Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License|Do What The F* You Want To Public License]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Same license (English version)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]<br />
| Generic<br />
| {{yes|Normal}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{yes|Granted}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Exact translations (French law)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Documentation License]]<br />
| Documentation<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<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 />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{yes}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| Unknown (license text is German)<br />
|-<br />
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]<br />
| Software<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{no}}<br />
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}<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 (TPM.) 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 />
=== Access control prohibition ===<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 />
=== 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''<ref></ref><br />
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html License text (English)]<br />
<br />
=== Do What The F* You Want To Public License ===<br />
<br />
* Aliases: WTFPL<br />
* Current version: 2 (December 2004)<br />
* [http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/COPYING License Text (English)]<br />
<br />
This is a minimalistic, all-permissive, all-purpose license.<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: 1.2<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>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Jtneill&diff=4584
User talk:Jtneill
2008-06-24T17:26:22Z
<p>Finnrind: Welcome& thanks for spotting that error at Definition. Regards, ~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Welcome& thanks for spotting that error at [[Definition]]. Regards, [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 13:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=4583
Talk:Definition
2008-06-24T17:25:25Z
<p>Finnrind: /* Box at top */"the" added</p>
<hr />
<div>== 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)<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 />
:: The cc-by still has a freaking load of text in it and this is a problem. The free software definition is licensed under "Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." that's ''it''. overkill is the right word. read [http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/texinfo/Verbatim-Copying-License.html#Verbatim-Copying-License this]. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<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)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: Upload not functional ==<br />
<br />
Make the uploaded files directory writable please, I cannot upload files. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:44, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Save It ==<br />
<br />
Can we save it to a music CD<br />
<br />
==Box at top==<br />
Should be (+ "a" or + "the" as the 3rd word):<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is a stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}} [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] 23:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:"the" added, thank you! [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 13:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition&diff=4582
Definition
2008-06-24T17:24:16Z
<p>Finnrind: the</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is the stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''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 humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
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 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.<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 />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "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 />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a 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 or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously 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 and should not be called "free."<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 cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Permissible_restrictions&diff=4577
Talk:Permissible restrictions
2008-06-24T02:13:11Z
<p>Finnrind: Talk:Mansour315.blogfa.com moved to Talk:Permissible restrictions over redirect: revert</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)<br />
<br />
== question ==<br />
A question on "Permissible restrictions": if a photo would have a restriction that the ''location'' where it was taken has to be mentioned, would that constitute an unpermissible restriction? Example: "Mention ''Taken at London zoo'' on publication". [[User:TeunSpaans|TeunSpaans]] 15:34, 27 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Our Definition? ==<br />
<br />
Why are '''WE''' so possessive of this definition, if its supposed to be about freedom?<br />
Its better to say '''this''' or '''the''' definintion.<br />
<br />
Also, is this page part of the definition? It's odd that such a crucial part is on a separate page,<br />
and the part on Versioning, which is not strictly speaking part of the definition, is on the definition's page!<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 13:18, 19 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Where do you read this? [[User:TeunSpaans|TeunSpaans]] 07:04, 7 July 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::First line ''There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede the essential freedom in our definition.''<br />
::This would be better phrased as: ''There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that do not impede the essential freedoms prescribed by this definition, and, hence, are compatible with it.''<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 13:57, 9 July 2007 (CEST)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Permissible_restrictions&diff=4575
Permissible restrictions
2008-06-24T02:12:49Z
<p>Finnrind: Mansour315.blogfa.com moved to Permissible restrictions over redirect: revert</p>
<hr />
<div>There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede the essential freedom in our [[definition]]. 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: for example, access to ''source code'', or prohibition of ''technical measures'' restricting essential freedoms.</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=4569
Talk:Definition
2008-06-21T12:07:11Z
<p>Finnrind: reverting test-edits</p>
<hr />
<div>== 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)<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 />
:: The cc-by still has a freaking load of text in it and this is a problem. The free software definition is licensed under "Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." that's ''it''. overkill is the right word. read [http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/texinfo/Verbatim-Copying-License.html#Verbatim-Copying-License this]. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<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)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: Upload not functional ==<br />
<br />
Make the uploaded files directory writable please, I cannot upload files. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:44, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Save It ==<br />
<br />
Can we save it to a music CD</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pt&diff=4567
Definition/Pt
2008-06-20T23:10:32Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 201.24.196.117 (Talk); changed back to last version by 201.4.124.120</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
<!--- {{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}} ---><br />
<br />
== Resumo ==<br />
<br />
Este documento define os "trabalhos culturais livres" como trabalhos ou expressões das quais se possa estudar livremente, empregar, copiar e/ou modificar por qualquer um, para qualquer finalidade. Aqui também são descritas certas restrições permissivas que respeitam ou protegem estas liberdades essenciais. A definição faz distinções entre ''trabalhos livres'' e ''[[licenses|licenças livres]]'', as quais podem ser utilizadas para proteger legalmente a condição de um trabalho livre. A definição em si ''não'' é uma licença; é uma ferramenta para determinar quando um trabalho ou uma licença poderão ser considerados como "livre."<br />
<br />
== Preâmbulo ==<br />
<br />
Os avanços tecnológicos e sociais possibilitam que uma parte crescente da humanidade possa ''acessar, criar, modificar, publicar e distribuir'' vários tipos de trabalhos - obras de arte, meteriais científicos e educacionais, ''software'', artigos - resumindo: ''qualquer coisa que possa ser representada digitalmente''. Muitas comunidades se têm formado para exercer estas novas possibilidades e criar uma riqueza de obras reutilizáveis colectivamente.<br />
<br />
A maioria dos autores, qualquer que seja o seu campo de atuação, seja amador ou profissional, tem um genuíno interesse em favorecer um ecossistema onde os trabalhos podem ser difundidos, reutilizados e derivados de maneiras criativas. Quanto mais fácil for reutilizar e derivar trabalhos, mais rica a nossa cultura se torna. <br />
<br />
Para garantir o funcionamento gracioso deste ecossistema, trabalhos de autoria devem ser '''livres''', e por ''liberdade'' queremos dizer:<br />
* a '''liberdade de usar''' o trabalho e aproveitar os benefícios do seu uso<br />
* a '''liberdade de estudar''' o trabalho e de aplicar o conhecimento dele adquirido<br />
* a '''liberdade de fazer cópias e distribuí-las''', em todo ou em parte, da informação ou expressão<br />
* a '''liberdade de fazer mudanças e melhoramentos''', e de distribuir trabalhos derivados<br />
<br />
Estas liberdades devem estar disponíveis para qualquer um, em qualquer lugar, a qualquer hora. Elas não devem ser restritas pelo contexto em que são usadas. Criatividade é o ato de usar um recurso existente de uma forma nunca antes vislumbrada.<br />
<br />
Na maioria dos países contudo, estas liberdades não são impostas mas suprimidas pelas leis comumente denominadas ''leis de direito autoral''. Elas consideram os autores como divindades criadoras e lhes dá um monopólio exclusivo de como o "seu conteúdo" pode ser reutilizado. Este monopólio impede a cultura de brotar, e nem mesmo ajuda na situação econômica dos autores tanto quanto protege o modelo de negócio das mais poderosas empresas editoras.<br />
<br />
Apesar destas leis, autores podem tornar seu trabalho livre ao escolher de um vasto arsenal de documentos legais conhecidos como [[w:licenças|licenças livres]]. Para um autor, ao colocar o seu trabalho sob uma ''licença livre'' não significa que ele perca todos os seus direitos, mas que ele dá a qualquer um as liberdades acima relacionadas.<br />
<br />
É importante que qualquer trabalho que se diga livre forneça, de forma prática e sem qualquer risco, as supracitadas liberdades. É porisso que daqui por diante damos uma precisa '''definição de liberdade''' para licenças e para trabalhos de autoria.<br />
<br />
== Identificação de trabalhos culturais livres ==<br />
<br />
Esta é a ''Definição de trabalhos culturais livres'' e, ao descrever seu trabalho, encorajamos que você faça referência a esta definição, por exemplo desta forma: "Este é um trabalho livremente licenciado, como explicado na ''Definição de trabalhos culturais livres''." Caso você não goste da expressão "Trabalho cultural livre", use o termo genérico "Conteúdo livre" ou então consulte um dos [[Existing Movements|movimento existentes]] que expressam liberdades similares em contextos mais específicos. Também encorajamos que você use os [[logos and buttons|logotipos e botões de Trabalhos culturais livres]], que são de domínio público.<br />
<br />
Esteja atento de que tal identificação na realidade ''não'' confere os direitos descritos nesta definição. Para que seu trabalho seja verdadeiramente livre, ele deve usar uma das [[Licenses|Licenças]] de Cultura livre ou ser colocado em domínio público.<br />
<br />
Nós desencorajamos que você use outros termos para identificar Trabalhos culturais livres que não conlevem uma clara definição de liberdade, como "Conteúdo aberto" e "Acesso aberto". Estes termos são utilizados com freqüência como referência a conteúdo que está disponível em termos "menos restritivos" do que as leis de copyright ou mesmo a trabalhos que estão simplesmente "disponíveis na Web".<br />
<br />
== Definição de licenças de conteúdo livre ==<br />
<br />
Licenças são instrumentos legais através dos quais o proprietário de certos direitos legais possa transferir esses direitos a terceiros. As Licenças Culturais Livres não retiram nenhum direito -- elas são sempre opcionais, e se aceitas, elas dão liberdades que as leis de direito autoral por si só não fornecem. Quando aceitas, elas nunca limitam ou reduzem as isenções existentes nas leis de direito autoral.<br />
<br />
=== Liberdades essenciais ===<br />
<br />
De modo a ser reconhecida como "livre" sob esta definição, uma licença deve dar as seguintes liberdades sem limitação:<br />
<br />
* '''A liberdade de usar e executar o trabalho:''' O licenciado deve poder fazer qualquer uso, privado ou público, do trabalho. Para tipos de trabalho onde seja relevante, esta liberdade deve incluir todos os usos derivados ("direitos relacionados") tais como executar ou interpretar o trabalho. Não devem haver exceções relativas a, por exemplo, considerações políticas ou religiosas.<br />
* '''A liberdade de estudar o trabalho e aplicar a informação:''' O licenciado deve poder examinar o trabalho e usar o conhecimento adquirido do trabalho de qualquer maneira que deseje. A licença não pode, por exemplo, restringir a "engenharia reversa".<br />
* '''A liberdade de distribuir cópias:''' As cópias podem ser vendidas, trocadas, ou distribuídas gratuitamente, como parte de um trabalho maior, uma coleção, ou de forma independente. Não deve haver limites na quantidade de informação que poderá ser copiada. Também não deve haver nenhum limite em relação a quem poderá copiar a informação ou onde a informação poderá ser copiada.<br />
* '''A liberdade de distribuir trabalhos derivados:''' De modo a permitir que qualquer um possa melhorar um trabalho, a licença não deve limitar a liberdade de distribuir uma versão modificada (ou, para trabalhos palpáveis, um trabalho de alguma maneira derivado do original), independente da intenção ou propósito de tais modificações. Contudo, algumas restrições podem ser aplicadas para proteger essas liberdades essenciais ou a atribuição de autores (veja abaixo).<br />
<br />
=== Restrições permissivas ===<br />
<br />
Nem todas as restrições ao uso ou distribuição de trabalhos invalidam as liberdades essenciais. Em particular, requisitos de atribuição, para a colaboração simétrica (i.e., "copyleft"), e para a proteção das liberdades essenciais são consideradas [[restrições permissíveis]].<br />
<br />
== Definição de trabalhos culturais livres ==<br />
<br />
Para ser considerado livre, um trabalho ''deve'' ser coberto por uma Licença Cultural Livre, ou seu status legal ''deve'' fornecer as mesmas ''liberdades essenciais'' acima enumeradas. Não é, contudo, uma condição suficiente. De fato, um trabalho específico pode ser não-livre de outras maneiras que restrinjam as liberdades essenciais. Estas são as condições adicionais para que um trabalho possa ser considerado livre:<br />
<br />
* '''Disponibilidade da fonte de dados:''' Onde um trabalho final foi obtido através da compilação ou processamento de um arquivo fonte ou de múltiplos arquivos fonte, todas as fontes de dados subjacentes devem estar disponíveis juntamente com o trabalho propriamente dito, sob as mesmas condições. Pode ser uma partitura de uma composição musical, os modelos usados em uma cena em 3D, os dados de uma publicação científica, os códigos fonte de um programa de computador, ou qualquer outra informação deste tipo. <br />
* '''Uso de um formato livre:''' Para arquivos digitais, o formato no qual um trabalho é disponibilizado não deve ser protegido por patentes, a menos que uma permissão livre de '''royalties''' mundial, ilimitada e irrevogável seja dada para que se faça uso da tecnologia patenteada. Enquanto formatos não-livres podem às vezes ser usados por razões práticas, uma cópia em formato livre ''deve'' estar disponível para que o trabalho seja considerado livre.<br />
* '''Nenhuma restrição técnica:''' O trabalho deve estar disponível de maneira que nenhuma medida técnica seja usada para limitar as liberdades acima enumeradas.<br />
* '''Nenhuma outra restrição ou limitação:''' O trabalho propriamente dito não deve estar coberto por restrições legais (petentes, contratos, etc.) ou limitações (como direitos de privacidade), o que anularia as liberdades acima enumeradas. Um trabalho pode fazer uso de isenções legais ao direito autoral (para citar trabalhos sob direito autoral), embora apenas as suas porções que são inambiguamente livres constituem um trabalho livre.<br />
<br />
Em outras palavras, quando quer que o usuário de um trabalho não possa legal ou praticamente exercer as suas liberdades básicas, o trabalho não poderá ser considerado, e não deverá ser denominado "livre".<br />
<br />
== Próximas leituras ==<br />
<br />
* Veja [[Licenças]] para uma discussão de licenças individuais, e se elas cumprem ou não esta definição.<br />
* Veja [[Histórico]] para reconhecimentos e fundamentos desta definição.<br />
* Veja o [[FAQ]] para algumas perguntas e respostas.<br />
* Veja [[Portal:Index]] para páginas de tópicos específicos sobre trabalhos culturais livres.<br />
<br />
== Versões ==<br />
<br />
Novas versões dessa definição devem ser liberadas tão logo um consenso (obtido diretamente ou através de votação, como no [[processo autoral]]) se desenvolva em torno das mudanças sugeridas. A numeração deve ser 0.x para a liberação preliminares, 1.x, 2.x .. para as liberações importantes, x.1, x.2 .. para liberações menores. Uma liberação menor é feita quando o texto é alterado de forma a não ter impacto sobre o escopo de licenças existentes ou hipotéticas cobertas por esta definição.<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition_of_Free_Cultural_Works:Copyrights&diff=4556
Definition of Free Cultural Works:Copyrights
2008-06-18T22:57:16Z
<p>Finnrind: Reverted edits by 87.9.171.39 (Talk); changed back to last version by Angela Beesley</p>
<hr />
<div>The content of this wiki is available under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution 2.5] unless otherwise specified.</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:DASIR_ENTERPRISES&diff=4553
User talk:DASIR ENTERPRISES
2008-06-17T23:43:15Z
<p>Finnrind: Don't reupload</p>
<hr />
<div>You're probably on the wrong wiki. The images you have uploaded has not got anything to do with the scope of this project and will be deleted. Regards, [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 19:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Please do not reupload those images here. They will only be deleted again. Regards, [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 19:43, 17 June 2008 (EDT)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:DASIR_ENTERPRISES&diff=4550
User talk:DASIR ENTERPRISES
2008-06-17T23:20:57Z
<p>Finnrind: Wrong wiki?</p>
<hr />
<div>You're probably on the wrong wiki. The images you have uploaded has not got anything to do with the scope of this project and will be deleted. Regards, [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 19:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Spiritia&diff=4535
User talk:Spiritia
2008-06-17T09:32:29Z
<p>Finnrind: reviewed</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi Spiritia. Welcome to this wiki. Thanks for your work on the [[Definition/Bg|translation]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 00:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Thank you, Angela! It was reviewed by [[User:Borislav|Borislav]] - one of our bureaucrats on BG WP and other BG projects and founder of the local branch. Is anything else needed before it can be moved to the reviewed ones? [[User:Spiritia|Spiritia]] 16:04, 8 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Moved to "reviewed" - thnaks for helping out! Regards, [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 05:32, 17 June 2008 (EDT)</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Template:Definition-langs&diff=4534
Template:Definition-langs
2008-06-17T09:31:33Z
<p>Finnrind: Bulgarian reviewed</p>
<hr />
<div><small><br />
* [[Definition|English original]]<br />
* Reviewed translations: [[Definition/Bg|Български]] | [[Definition/It|Italiano]] | [[Definition/Mk|Македонски]] | [[Definition/Nb|Norsk (bokmål)]]| [[Definition/Pl|Polski]] | [[Definition/Sk|Slovenčina]]<br />
* Review pending: [[Definition/Cs|Česky]] | [[Definition/De|Deutsch]] | [[Definition/El|Ελληνικά]] | [[Definition/Es|Español]] | [[Definition/Fr|Français]] | [[Definition/Ru|Русский]] | [[Definition/Fi|Suomi]] | [[Definition/Sv|Svenska]] | [[Definition/Ko|한국어]]<br />
* [[Translations|More in progress]]</small></div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Translations&diff=4533
Translations
2008-06-17T09:30:06Z
<p>Finnrind: bg done</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
Translations of the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'' are coordinated here. Translations will be approved by [[moderators]] before they are linked from the official definition. Please help us translate the definition into every language in the world!<br />
<br />
To get started, please [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Translations&action=edit edit this page] and add a link to your language if it doesn't exist, in the format of the existing ones below:<br />
<br />
* [[Definition/Ar]] - Arabic<br />
* [[Definition/Bg]] - Bulgarian (translation and proofreading '''done''') <br />
* [[Definition/Zh]] - Chinese<br />
* [[Definition/Zh-TW]] - Traditional Chinese<br />
* [[Definition/Cs]] - Czech (translation done, needs proofreading, copyediting etc.)<br />
* [[Definition/Da]] - Danish<br />
* [[Definition/El]] - Greek (translation done, needs proofreading, copyediting etc.)<br />
* [[Definition/Eu]] - Basque (translating)<br />
* [[Definition/En]] - '''English original'''<br />
* [[Definition/Et]] - Estonian<br />
* [[Definition/Fi]] - Finnish (translation done, needs proofreading, copyediting etc.)<br />
* [[Definition/Fr]] - French (translation in progress)<br />
* [[Definition/De]] - German (translation done, needs proofreading, copyediting etc.)<br />
* [[Definition/He]] - Hebrew<br />
* [[Definition/Hu]] - Hungarian<br />
* [[Definition/Id]] - Indonesian (started)<br />
* [[Definition/It]] - Italian (translation and proofreading '''done''') <br />
* [[Definition/Ja]] - Japanese<br />
* [[Definition/Ko]] - Korean (translation done, needs proofreading)<br />
* [[Definition/Nb]] - Norwegian (Bokmål) (translation and proofreading '''done''')<br />
* [[Definition/Nl]] - Dutch<br />
* [[Definition/Mk]] - Macedonian (translation and proofreading '''done''')<br />
* [[Definition/Pl]] - Polish (translation and proofreading '''done''')<br />
* [[Definition/Pt]] - Portuguese<br />
* [[Definition/Ru]] - Russian (translation done, needs proofreading)<br />
* [[Definition/Sk]] - Slovak (translation and proofreading '''done''')<br />
* [[Definition/Es]] - Spanish (translation done, needs proofreading)<br />
* [[Definition/Sv]] - Swedish (status: translated, copyedited, needs adjustment on special words and terms)<br />
<br />
<br />
We are using [[m:List_of_Wikipedias|Wikipedia language codes]] to identify languages. To start a translation, follow the link above and create the definition or edit/improve it. Update the status of the definition on this page when you reach a milestone. <br />
<br />
You can find the original (protected) v1.0 text [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition&action=edit from here]. <br />
<br />
Once you are done, contact one of the [[moderators]] or e-mail Erik at (<tt>eloquence at gmail dot com</tt>).</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:Finnrind&diff=4529
User:Finnrind
2008-06-16T22:35:31Z
<p>Finnrind: +</p>
<hr />
<div>I'm Finn Rindahl. I'm active at various wikimedia projects, and an admin at [[:commons:User:Finnrind|Wikimedia Commons]]. I'm also a bureaucrat at this project, so please feel free to post at [[user talk:Finnrind|my talkpage]] if there's anything you need help with.</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Sk&diff=4528
Definition/Sk
2008-06-16T22:24:14Z
<p>Finnrind: ==</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stabilná verzia|Toto je stabilná verzia '''1.0''' definície. Číslo verzie sa bude zvyšovať s vývojom definície. Na [[Definition/Unstable]] je verzia definície, ktorú možno upravovať. Viac informácií nájdete na [[authoring process]]. Ak chcete prispieť verziou v ďalšom jazyku, pozrite [[translations]].}}<br />
<br />
== Zhrnutie == <br />
Tento dokument definuje „slobodné kultúrne diela“ ako diela či reprezentácie, ktoré je umožnené komukoľvek slobodne študovať, používať, kopírovať a/alebo modifikovať na akýkoľvek účel. Zároveň popisuje isté prípustné obmedzenia, ktoré rešpektujú a chránia tieto základné slobody. Definícia rozlišuje medzi ''slobodnými dielami'' a ''[[licenses|slobodnými licenciami]]'', ktoré môžu slúžiť na právnu ochranu štatútu slobodného diela. Samotná definícia ''nie je'' licenciou; je to kľúč na určenie, či dané dielo alebo licenciu možno považovať za „slobodné“.<br />
<br />
== Preambula ==<br />
<br />
Spoločenský a technologický rozvoj umožňuje stále väčšej časti ľudstva ''získavať, vytvárať, upravovať, publikovať a šíriť'' rozličné druhy diel – umelecké diela, vedecké a vzdelávacie materiály, softvér, články – v krátkosti: ''čokoľvek, čo môže byť reprezentované v digitálnej podobe''. S cieľom využiť tieto nové možnosti a vytvoriť bohatstvo kolektívne znovu použiteľných diel vzniklo mnoho komunít.<br />
<br />
Väčšina autorov, bez ohľadu na obor činnosti a amatérske či profesionálne postavenie, má úprimný záujem podporovať ekosystém, v ktorom možno diela šíriť, opakovane využívať a kreatívne rozvíjať. Čím jednoduchšie je znovupoužitie a rozvoj diel, tým viac sa obohacuje kultúra.<br />
<br />
Na zaistenie plynulého chodu tohoto ekosystému je potrebné, aby autorské diela boli '''slobodné''', pričom ''slobodou'' sa myslí:<br />
* '''sloboda používať''' dielo a využívať výhody plynúce z jeho použitia<br />
* '''sloboda študovať''' dielo a uplatňovať znalosti z neho získané<br />
* '''sloboda vytvárať a šíriť kópie''' informácie či reprezentácie, v celku alebo časti<br />
* '''sloboda meniť a vylepšovať''' dielo a šíriť odvodené diela<br />
<br />
Tieto slobody by mal mať každý, kdekoľvek a kedykoľvek. Nemali by byť obmedzované kontextom, v ktorom sa dielo používa. Tvorba je akt použitia existujúceho zdroja spôsobom, ktorý doteraz nikto nepredvídal.<br />
<br />
Vo väčšine krajín sa však tieto slobody nevynucujú, ale potláčajú prostredníctvom zákonov, ktoré sa všeobecne označujú ako ''autorské zákony''. V týchto zákonoch sa autori považujú za božských tvorcov a priznáva sa im výlučné právo určovať spôsoby, akými sa „ich obsah“ smie používať. Tento monopol bráni rozkvetu kultúry a neprospieva ani tak ekonomickej situácii autorov ako chráni obchodný model najväčších vydavateľstiev.<br />
<br />
Napriek týmto zákonom môžu autori svoje dielo uvoľniť ako slobodné ak si zvolia zo širokej palety právnych dokumentov, ktoré sú známe ako [[w:sk:licencie|slobodné licencie]]. Voľba ''slobodnej licencie'' neznamená pre autora stratu všetkých jeho práv, ale poskytuje komukoľvek vyššie vymenované slobody.<br />
<br />
Je dôležité, aby každé dielo označované ako slobodné, poskytovalo (v praxi a bez rizika) vyššie spomenuté slobody. To je dôvod, prečo tu uvádzame presnú '''definíciu slobody''' licencií a autorských diel.<br />
<br />
== Označovanie slobodných kultúrnych diel ==<br />
<br />
Toto je ''definícia slobodných kultúrnych diel'' a ak popisujete svoje dielo, vyzývame vás, aby ste odkázali na túto definíciu napríklad slovami: „Toto je slobodne licencované dielo, ako je vysvetlené v ''definícii slobodných kultúrnych diel''.“ Ak sa vám nepáči termín „slobodné kultúrne dielo“, môžete použiť všeobecný pojem „slobodný obsah“ alebo odkázať na jedno z [[Existing Movements|existujúcich hnutí]], ktoré vyjadrujú podobné slobody v konkrétnejších kontextoch. Zároveň vás vyzývame, aby ste používali [[logos and buttons|logá a značky slobodnej kultúry]], ktoré sú k dispozícii ako voľné diela (public domain).<br />
<br />
Uvedomte si, že takéto označenie diela samo o sebe '''neposkytuje''' práva popísané v tejto definícii. Aby bolo dielo skutočne slobodné, musí používať jednu z [[Licenses|licencií]] slobodnej kultúry alebo byť voľným dielom.<br />
<br />
Neodporúčame používať na identifikáciu slobodných kultúrnych diel termíny, ktoré nezodpovedajú presnej definícii slobody ako je „voľný obsah“ či „otvorený prístup“. Tieto termíny sa často používajú pre obsah, ktorý sa ponúka za podmienok „menej reštriktívnych“ než sú existujúce autorské zákony, prípadne pre diela, ktoré len sú „k dispozícii na webe“.<br />
<br />
== Definícia licencí slobodnej kultúry ==<br />
<br />
Licencie sú právny nástroj, pomocou ktorého môže vlastník určitých práv prenášať tieto práva na tretie strany. Licencie slobodnej kultúry žiadne práva neodoberajú – súhlas s nimi je vždy dobrovoľný a ak ich nadobúdateľ prijme, priznávajú mu slobody, ktoré autorský zákon sám o sebe neposkytuje. Slobodné licencie nikdy neobmedzujú či nezužujú výnimky, ktoré existujú v autorských zákonoch.<br />
<br />
=== Základné slobody ===<br />
<br />
Ak sa má licencia považovať za „slobodnú“ v zmysle tejto definície, musí bez obmedzenia poskytovať nasledujúce slobody:<br />
<br />
* '''Sloboda používať a šíriť dielo:''' Nadobúdateľ licencie musí mať dovolené akokoľvek súkromne aj verejne dielo používať. V prípade druhov diel, kde je to relevantné, by táto sloboda mala zahrňovať všetky odvodené použitia („súvisiace práva“) ako je umelecká interpretácia diela. Nesmú existovať žiadne výnimky, ktoré budú napríklad zohľadňovať náboženstvo či politický postoj.<br />
* '''Sloboda študovať dielo a využívať informácie:''' Nadobúdateľ musí mať dovolené dielo skúmať a akýmkoľvek spôsobom používať znalosti z neho nadobudnuté. Licencia nesmie obmedzovať napríklad „reverzné inžinierstvo“.<br />
* '''Sloboda rozširovať kópie:''' Kópie je dovolené predávať, vymieňať či darovať, nezávisle alebo ako súčasť väčšieho diela či súboru. Množstvo kopírovanej informácie nesmie byť nijako obmedzené. Nesmie byť ani obmedzené, kto smie kopírovať či kam sa môže informácia kopírovať.<br />
* '''Sloboda rozširovať odvodené diela:''' Kvôli zaisteniu možnosti dielo vylepšovať nesmie licencia obmedzovať slobodu rozširovať pozmenenú verziu (v prípade hmotného diela sa tým myslí dielo nejakým spôsobom odvodené od originálu), bez ohľadu na zámer či účel takýchto zmien. Je však možné uplatniť určité obmedzenia za účelom ochrany týchto základných slobôd a na prisudzovanie autorstva (pozri nižšie).<br />
<br />
=== Prípustné obmedzenia ===<br />
<br />
Nie každé obmedzenie použitia či šírenia diela odporuje základným slobodám. Najmä požiadavky na priznanie autorstva, na symetrickú spoluprácu (t.j. „copyleft“) a na ochranu základných slobôd sa považujú za [[permissible restrictions|prípustné obmedzenia]].<br />
<br />
== Definícia slobodných kultúrnych diel ==<br />
<br />
Ak sa má dielo považovať za slobodné, ''musí'' byť pokryté licenciou slobodnej kultúry, prípadne jeho právny štatút ''musí'' poskytovať vyššie vymenované ''základné slobody''. To však nie je postačujúca podmienka. V skutočnosti môže byť konkrétne dielo neslobodné inými spôsobmi, ktoré základné slobody obmedzujú. Toto sú dodatočné podmienky na to, aby dielo bolo považované za slobodné:<br />
<br />
* '''Prístupnosť zdrojových dát:''' Ak je koncové dielo získané zhromaždením či spracovaním jedného či viacerých zdrojových súborov, všetky podstatné zdrojové dáta musia byť k dispozícii s dielom samotným, a to za rovnakých podmienok. Zdrojom môže byť notový zápis hudobnej skladby, modely použité v trojrozmernej scéne, dáta pre vedeckú publikáciu, zdrojový kód počítačovej aplikácie či iné podobné informácie.<br />
* '''Použitie slobodného formátu:''' V prípade digitálnych súborov by formát, v ktorom je dielo dané k dispozícii, nemal byť patentovo chránený, s výnimkou prípadov, kedy je celosvetovo, neobmedzene a neodvolateľne zaistená možnosť používať bez poplatkov patentovanú technológiu. Z praktických dôvodov možno používať aj neslobodné formáty, ale ak sa má dielo považovať za slobodné, ''musí'' byť k dispozícii aj kópia v slobodnom formáte.<br />
* '''Žiadne technické obmedzenia:''' Dielo musí byť k dispozícii vo forme, ktorá nepoužíva technické prostriedky na potlačenie vyššie vymenovaných slobôd.<br />
* '''Žiadne iné prekážky a obmedzenia:''' Dielo samotné nesmie byť kryté právnymi prekážkami (patentami, zmluvami atď.) či obmedzeniami (ako ochrana súkromia), ktoré by bránili výkonu základných slobôd vymenovaných vyššie. Dielo môže využívať existujúce výnimky z autorských práv (za účelom citovania chránených diel), avšak slobodné dielo tvoria len tie časti, ktoré sú jednoznačne slobodné.<br />
<br />
Inými slovami, kedykoľvek používateľ diela nemôže z právnych či praktických dôvodov svoje základné slobody vykonávať, dielo sa nedá považovať za slobodné a nemalo by tak byť označované.<br />
<br />
== Súvisiace texty ==<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses]] – diskusia o konkrétnych licenciách, či splňujú alebo nesplňujú túto definíciu<br />
* [[History]] – poďakovanie a podklady pre túto definíciu<br />
* [[FAQ]] – časté otázky a odpovede na ne<br />
* [[Portal:Index]] – stránky o ďalších témach k slobodným kultúrnym dielam<br />
<br />
== Číslovanie verzií ==<br />
<br />
Nové verzie tejto definície by mali byť vydávané hneď potom, ako nastane zhoda (dosiahnutá priamo či pomocou hlasovaní, pozrite [[authoring process]]) o navrhnutých zmenách. Číslovanie by malo byť 0.x pri počiatočných konceptoch, 1.x, 2.x, … pri veľkých vydaniach a x.1, x.2, … pre menšie vydania. K menšiemu vydanie dôjde, ak je text modifikovaný len spôsobom, ktorý nemá vplyv na rozsah existujúcich či hypotetických licencií pokrytých touto definíciou.<br />
<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Translations&diff=4527
Translations
2008-06-16T22:15:36Z
<p>Finnrind: nb done</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
Translations of the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'' are coordinated here. Translations will be approved by [[moderators]] before they are linked from the official definition. Please help us translate the definition into every language in the world!<br />
<br />
To get started, please [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Translations&action=edit edit this page] and add a link to your language if it doesn't exist, in the format of the existing ones below:<br />
<br />
* [[Definition/Ar]] - Arabic<br />
* [[Definition/Bg]] - Bulgarian<br />
* [[Definition/Zh]] - Chinese<br />
* [[Definition/Zh-TW]] - Traditional Chinese<br />
* [[Definition/Cs]] - Czech (translation done, needs proofreading, copyediting etc.)<br />
* [[Definition/Da]] - Danish<br />
* [[Definition/El]] - Greek (translation done, needs proofreading, copyediting etc.)<br />
* [[Definition/Eu]] - Basque (translating)<br />
* [[Definition/En]] - '''English original'''<br />
* [[Definition/Et]] - Estonian<br />
* [[Definition/Fi]] - Finnish (translation done, needs proofreading, copyediting etc.)<br />
* [[Definition/Fr]] - French (translation in progress)<br />
* [[Definition/De]] - German (translation done, needs proofreading, copyediting etc.)<br />
* [[Definition/He]] - Hebrew<br />
* [[Definition/Hu]] - Hungarian<br />
* [[Definition/Id]] - Indonesian (started)<br />
* [[Definition/It]] - Italian (translation and proofreading '''done''') <br />
* [[Definition/Ja]] - Japanese<br />
* [[Definition/Ko]] - Korean (translation done, needs proofreading)<br />
* [[Definition/Nb]] - Norwegian (Bokmål) (translation and proofreading '''done''')<br />
* [[Definition/Nl]] - Dutch<br />
* [[Definition/Mk]] - Macedonian (translation and proofreading '''done''')<br />
* [[Definition/Pl]] - Polish (translation and proofreading '''done''')<br />
* [[Definition/Pt]] - Portuguese<br />
* [[Definition/Ru]] - Russian (translation done, needs proofreading)<br />
* [[Definition/Sk]] - Slovak (translation and proofreading '''done''')<br />
* [[Definition/Es]] - Spanish (translation done, needs proofreading)<br />
* [[Definition/Sv]] - Swedish (status: translated, copyedited, needs adjustment on special words and terms)<br />
<br />
<br />
We are using [[m:List_of_Wikipedias|Wikipedia language codes]] to identify languages. To start a translation, follow the link above and create the definition or edit/improve it. Update the status of the definition on this page when you reach a milestone. <br />
<br />
You can find the original (protected) v1.0 text [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition&action=edit from here]. <br />
<br />
Once you are done, contact one of the [[moderators]] or e-mail Erik at (<tt>eloquence at gmail dot com</tt>).</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Template:Definition-langs&diff=4526
Template:Definition-langs
2008-06-16T22:14:24Z
<p>Finnrind: adding nb to reviewed</p>
<hr />
<div><small><br />
* [[Definition|English original]]<br />
* Reviewed translations: [[Definition/It|Italiano]] | [[Definition/Mk|Македонски]] | [[Definition/Nb|Norsk (bokmål)]]| [[Definition/Pl|Polski]] | [[Definition/Sk|Slovenčina]]<br />
* Review pending: [[Definition/Cs|Česky]] | [[Definition/De|Deutsch]] | [[Definition/El|Ελληνικά]] | [[Definition/Es|Español]] | [[Definition/Fr|Français]] | [[Definition/Ru|Русский]] | [[Definition/Fi|Suomi]] | [[Definition/Sv|Svenska]] | [[Definition/Bg|Български]] | [[Definition/Ko|한국어]]<br />
* [[Translations|More in progress]]</small></div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=FAQ&diff=4524
FAQ
2008-06-15T11:28:37Z
<p>Finnrind: Undo revision 4520 by 122.54.91.108 (Talk)</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 />
[[Media:'''Example.ogg''']]== 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 />
== 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 />
* [http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2006/chapter_06/osjb2006-06-02-en-moeller.pdf ''Erik Möller'', The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a<br />
Creative Commons NC License]<br />
<br />
==Why isn't a NoDerivatives restriction considered free?==</div>
Finnrind
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Source_Code&diff=4523
Source Code
2008-06-15T11:27:33Z
<p>Finnrind: spamUndo revision 4518 by Mysapridelicious (Talk)</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 />
* ...</div>
Finnrind