https://freedomdefined.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Inkwina&feedformat=atomDefinition of Free Cultural Works - User contributions [en]2024-03-19T11:52:39ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.38.4https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=4242Talk:Definition/Unstable2008-04-09T08:10:58Z<p>Inkwina: New section: Defining Free Cultural Works</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. <br />
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: <br />
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]]. <br />
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:<br />
Users are free to<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:<br />
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; <br />
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share <br />
enhancements or derived works.<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:<br />
<br />
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.<br />
<br />
Users are free to:<br />
<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim] <br />
<br />
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]<br />
<br />
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.<br />
<br />
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).<br />
<br />
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"<br />
<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/philosophy/saylibre Say Libre] - [http://www.wikieducator.org/Say_Libre discuss].<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Final name ==<br />
<br />
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Hu?<br />
: First, welcome back...<br />
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?<br />
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)<br />
<br />
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?<br />
<br />
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".<br />
<br />
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.<br />
<br />
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: It was important to us (Mako and myself, the co-initiators of the definition) to label the definition in a way which is agreeable to the important institutions of the Free Culture movement -- FSF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and so on. The discussion on the wiki was absolutely crucial to the entire process. All the names that have been listed here have been mentioned and repeatedly considered. Mako and I have spoken personally to Lessig, RMS, Moglen, and others about this. Now that, after many hours of talking, we have finally found something everyone seems to be able to agree to (more or less enthusiastically), you will have to understand that I am reluctant to second-guess the decision. Certainly, it is always nicer to have a larger scale community process to give a decision legitimacy, but I also believe that process is not an end in itself, and hope we can move foward together. I certainly appreciate (and am well aware of) all the work you have done on this wiki.<br />
<br />
:: Regarding your specific critique: the strength of "Free Cultural Works", in my opinion, is that it references the notion of "Free Culture" without explicitly being called a "Free Culture Definition". It also reduces the "work (labor)" vs. "work (intellectual)" ambiguity in the singular. For example, if I refer to a CD as a "Free Work", the response "So you've worked for free?" is almost inevitable. I do not agree that "Free Cultural" excludes software or scientific articles; in my opinion, both are very much and very clearly cultural works, and should be explicitly referenced.<br />
<br />
:: That the title of the definition itself is not quite catchy may not be such a bad thing -- we will not attempt to prescribe that you have to call free cultural works by that exact phrase. Instead, what I would like to do is to explicitly reference other phrases which have similar meanings, such as "free content" and "open knowledge".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: I understand you want to put Lessig, RMS and others on our side, but I think we shouldn't care. We have to do this work because FSF and CC refused to take position in the first place, so we are the ones setting a standard.<br />
<br />
::: Anyway, I'm ready to further contribute. But, sincerely, it will be difficult unless things stop being done in private. Regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:06, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: It would be fine if there had been offline discussion, provided that details were posted to the wiki here so that we could also see it, at the time or after the fact. Indeed, you have a wiki, so one might ask why the discussion was not carried out through the wiki, which would seem designed for the task?<br />
<br />
::: Also, like Antoine, I have a great deal of respect for Richard Stallman and for Lawrence Lessig, who through their writings have between them opened my eyes to freedom. Nevertheless, we should not fear to build on that, and hope to equal or exceed what has passed before. <br />
<br />
::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:48, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" border="1" width="80%"><br />
<tr><td><br />
"Definition of Free Cultural Works" suggests [http://creativecommons.org/ "Creative Commons"] and the associated [http://www.free-culture.cc/ "Free Culture" book]. While these are both brilliant, they suggest a range of licenses most of which are non-free. We need to focus on the free/<em>libre</em> licenses which conform to the definition we are developing. <br />
<br />
Prefer something like "Definition of Libre Works" or "Definition of Free/Libre Resources", etc. - or simply "Libre Definition" - Kim Tucker 30 October 2006.</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
:::: I concur with your comments, and I'm not terribly happy either with the term "Cultural" nor with the term "Works", for various reasons. Libre Definition or Libre Content Definition would be much more acceptable, and I often use the term "Software libre" in preference to "Free software" for similar reasons. So far Libre is not really an English word in itself, but perhaps we should adopt it and make it so anyway, since "Free" in current English has too many connotations of both "Libre" and "Gratis" which are avoided by use of a more precise term.<br />
<br />
:::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 00:55, 31 October 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: ''Libre'' doesn't work for me -- too strange and foreign, too easily to confuse with "Libri" (books). IMHO focusing the "Free Culture" movement on a clearer notion of freedom is a worthy goal in its own right.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:32, 2 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: That's a reasonable point, and is the same reason that "Free software" is the normal expression in English, rather than "Software libre" although that can of course be used as well - and much of our language derives from expressions which were originally "strange and foreign" but became familiar and commonplace because people started using them anyway.<br />
<br />
::::: For our purposes it's unfortunate, due to the confusion in English between "libre" and "gratis" according to context, where "libre" captures our intended meaning. So far the best expression I've seen is "Free Content Definition" as in the present unstable definition, as dropping the "and Expression" was a distinct improvement, and we can explain that we mean ''Free content'' in the sense of liberty not price. --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:09, 5 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::::: Libre disambiguates, while "free" is foreign and confusing to most people on the planet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre#Libre Wikipedia on Libre] indicates that the word "Libre" is used in various [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages Romance languages] while "gratis is common in Germanic and Romance languages. So, at least speakers of those languages would identify with these terms, and no-one would be confused about what is meant. <br />
In various circles, the term FLOSS is being used more and more - probably encouraged by high profile research projects such as [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSWorld] and [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSPols] among others and in articles in [http://www.firstmonday.org First Monday] where the acronym FLOSS is used more than FOSS (the L is significant).<br />
I think it is time (and would be useful) to make "libre" an accepted English word - like so many others from the Romance languages :-). [[User:ktucker|Kim]] 20070118<br />
<br />
== look forward to seeing updates, anyway ==<br />
<br />
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.<br />
<br />
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else ''generalised'', applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's ''Cultural'', and whether or not it's a ''Work'' however that is defined.<br />
<br />
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:<br />
<br />
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.<br />
<br />
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ philosophy] page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.<br />
<br />
:regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I also find the use of the term "god-like" unsavoury. This term might be offensive to parctitioners of certain faiths, particulary if or when the definition is translated to certain languages. I belive that such a definition would be most useful if it written in an as unequivocal a language as possible, while at the same time avoiding a legalistic style. Not that this is an easy task, but avoiding emotionally charged language would help.<br />
<br />
btw, it is the laws, not the countries that create the situation, this is not clear in the current.<br />
"thier content" is metaphoric and emotional, and I'm not clear why its re-use, not plain use.<br />
<br />
I would rewrite this sentence as follows: <br />
<cite> They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. </cite> to<br />
'''Such laws provide authors with extraordianry rights, effectivly granting them an exlusive monopoly as to how the content they create can be used.'''<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:33, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
:[[Talk:Definition#.22god-like_creators.22.3F|Additional thoughts.]] Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 23:57, 10 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Added "freedom to use" to the preamble ==<br />
<br />
As it was the preamble was not consistent with subsequent sections; please amend and re-edit as may be necessary.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:42, 26 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== (re)distribute v. communicate ==<br />
<br />
When we talk about information distribution esseantially equals communication. After all, the network, and the community, consists of people, and the information that is shared by the community isn't "distributed" it is "communicated".<br />
<br />
I thus argue that<br />
<br />
# the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
# the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works <br />
<br />
should be changed to something along the lines of <br />
<br />
# the freedom to communicate the information or expression to anyone, without restriction<br />
# the freedom to communicate mutated versions of the information or expression<br />
<br />
== Definition and / or manifesto? ==<br />
<br />
The current preamble asserts that (all) cultural works should be free. Is this really to be part of the definition? My guess is that many people are interested in a definition, without necessarily being in support of this claim. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 17:48, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Saying that works of authorship should be free seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement to me. The definition does not advocate abolishing copyright law to ''achieve'' that goal, nor does it set any kind of timetable -- in fact, it doesn't even assert that this goal is achievable for all works of authorship. It merely expresses a clear moral preference of free over non-free works. This moral preference is, indeed, something which I think we should communicate, as the definition is not meant to be merely a sterile legal text, but part of a social movement which agrees with this very basic notion -- but may favor different methods to achieve it, or even disagree upon its ultimate feasibility.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:49, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: It is not my intention to question that the preference of free works should be stated on the site. Still, it is hardly part the definition of a free work. Therefore, I would suggest another page for the moral and philosophy, separated from the definition. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 15:29, 1 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this definition refers, and implicitly applies exclusively to, Digital renditions. I do not know if this is intentional, but it is defiantly not a bad thing. I believe that for a work to be really free it needs to be replicatable (i.e. it should be possible to make a perfect copy, not that it is possible to come up with it again from scratch). This is only practically possible (easy) with text (hence the power of writing) and today with digital media. If there is agreement with this vein of thought I think that it should be made more explicit in the definition. <br />
<br />
This would nicely lead to the statement that the freedoms required by the definition cannot be technically impaired or limited (e.g. through the use of propriety digital formats) <br />
e.g. an audio clip can be released under CC-BY-SA as an .ogg and as a .wma, but only the .ogg version should be considered free under this definition.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 12:35, 9 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:Actually, the definition tries to take physical (non-digital) works into account. A license like the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] was explicitly drafted with physical works in mind as well. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:38, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: <cite> ...make it possible for a growing part of humanity to access, create, modify, publish and distribute cultural works that can be represented in digital form ...</cite> This sentence gives the opposite impression. It's really a matter of clarity.<br />
::Also can this definition apply to an original oil painting on canvas? how can "The freedom to redistribute copies" be reconciled with "No technical restrictions" when the only way to make a copy of an oil painting is to employ a copy artist with great technical skill to make a copy; what is somtimes called a "fake". -[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 03:49, 21 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, the quote above is part of the preamble, it explains the technical context that makes free content more and more relevant. But the definition itself is not specific to digital works.<br />
:::As for making copies of a painting, I don't see having skills as a "technical restriction". For making a copy of a digital image, you also need technical skills (copying a file on a computer is a skill, even if a basic one). In the spirit of this definition, a restriction is a burden that is deliberately added by the author/producer/distributor, not a requirement inherent to the kind of work. If I want to modify a piece of software and recompile it, I'd better know how to code: is it a "technical restriction" too?<br />
:::By the way, while you need some very good skills to make a near-perfect copy, you can also make a very approximate copy which would still qualify as a breach of "intellectual property" if the original painting was not under a free license.<br />
:::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:21, 21 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I think the definition can be reconciled by requiring any work which can be modified non-destructively to allow modification -- but any work which cannot be should have no restrictions on derivatives which do not destroy the original work. ("No technical restrictions" may even include not being displayed in a venue which does not allow photography -- which is a huge technical restriction right now on creating derivatives of works which should have fallen into the public domain.) [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:13, 28 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Good point Kat. But the real problem is not with deriviative works but with copies. It is the Freedom to redistribute copies that creates a problem. Contrast the digital domain, where a copy of a pice of code has the same value (not neccecarly monatary) as the original, with the art domain where a copy always has a different value (not nessecarly minor) by virtue of being a copy. Then again contrast that with music, where a score can be copied, but the music itself is only ever interpreted never copied, even if the same piece is performed twice in a row by the same person. Again the technical skill to copy/compile code can be easly acquired, and is widely available and distributied, espessially when compared to the ability to make 'indistinguishable' copies of artwork, which is a rare abilty at best, impossible at worst. A rough copy, might infringe copyright, but it is a deriviative work. I apologize for being the devil's advocate, but I belive that if this definition is to be used outside of the domain of digital works it need to be written in a way that makes sense to people who might have a very different idea of what "to copy a creative work" means, different from that of geeks and probabbly different from one another's. I, more or less, understand what is meant and the inherent limitations because I'm familiar with FLOSS and wikipedia, but if I were to read this text the the Music Professor who I occasionally have to help use the photocopier, 'cause he can't even set it to A3, his interpretaion will be that this was written by a bunch of rebles tring to lay their hands on his royalties :-) --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:18, 23 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== The role of the source file requirement? ==<br />
<br />
I agree that something like the source file requirement needs to be included. I think it aims at several related ideals:<br />
<br />
# Providing a modifiable format (e.g. a text file rather than a PDF)<br />
# Providing a format informative to humans (e.g. a musical score rather than an Ogg Vorbis recording)<br />
# Providing necessary information that is only summarized or analyzed in the distributed work at all (e.g. providing the actual coded dataset for a paper reporting the results of a regression analysis)<br />
<br />
I'm not sure that the "source file" concept quite addresses these issues. As applied to software, source code gets at (1) very well, (2) pretty well, and (3) doesn't usually arise. I wonder whether there is some more helpful term the definition could use, or perhaps whether the item itself should be split into more than one.<br />
<br />
== "their content" ==<br />
<br />
Why the sneering tone towards authorship? 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 />
== "purpose" ==<br />
<br />
Speaking as a translator, I find the very first sentence ambiguous: "''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.''"<br />
<br />
Is "purpose" here ''purpose'' as in motivation; or ''purpose'' as in manner of using? "For fun" is a purpose, but so is "as a doorstop". Perhaps some grammatician can say that one of those is semantically not a valid understanding of "purpose" or that they are in a larger sense equivalent, but I am worried about the casual reader, and will note that some languages (definitely not Finnish) may not find a direct equivalent for such a flexible word. -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro]] 15:55, 25 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:It's purpose as in reason (or "manner of using" as you said it). [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 16:49, 25 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I tend to disagree. My interpretation leaned towards ''intention'' rather then ''action'' but both aspects, should be covered. that is why the word purpose is useful, albeit a headache for translators, who have to see how to encapsulate both meanings. By negation, a book with a licence that forbids you from using a printed version of it a fodder for a fire cannot be said to be free. A book with a licence which disallows you from using it in an language class as an example of bad grammar is also not free. maybe: "...copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose." should become: "...copied and/or modified, by any person (both legal and natural), for any purpose, in manner and intention." but that sounds too legalistic, doesn't it?<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 17:19, 26 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Indeed. I went around the obstacle, and listed both meanings separately. I don't see why it wouldn't benefit the english version to be explicit about there being these two components to "purpose" either. -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro]] 17:06, 27 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== "essential" ==<br />
<br />
Another incredibly irritating phrase; "Essential Freedom". Puh-lease, say what you really mean. "Essential" as in it is essential that I find the lost pair to my sock? Essential in the sense of inalienable, never to be breached for what reason whatsoever. I am pretty sure neither is what is meant here. Is it intended to be deliberately ambiguous? Can't a more tightly construeable word be found? -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro]] 16:25, 25 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:They are essential. Without them, the content can not be called free content, which means they're essential to this definition. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 16:49, 25 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Hmmm... the words ''fundamental'' and ''necessary'' come to mind as better alternatives. Possibly there freedoms might be better called "Required Basic Freedoms for Works to Comply to the Definition".<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 17:19, 26 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Both "fundamental" and "necessary" sound better, but your last long form suggestion is the best of the lot for my money; even though some may think it is clunky because long, it is better to be clunky and clear than belles lettres and fuzzy on the interpretation. -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro]] 17:11, 27 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
I find that the statement: "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." does not make it explicit enough that works in the public domain are also free by this definition as the emphasis it on the license. I think it might be reworded so: "For a cultural work to be free its legal status ''must'' provide the required freedoms enumerated above. Works in the Public Domain or those licensed under a recognized [[Licenses|Free Culture License]] have these required freedoms. Works under other licenses which provide ''all'' the required freedoms are also Free Works." --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 04:10, 9 April 2008 (EDT)</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Licenses&diff=4240Talk:Licenses2008-04-09T07:55:32Z<p>Inkwina: New section: Not Quite a Licence</p>
<hr />
<div>== An idea for a proper grid ==<br />
<br />
I suggest to send a questionnarie to the organizations that have published the licenses.<br />
Otherwise, we risk to get into trouble these organizations. The grid involves a responsability<br />
(it is not a simple definition).<br />
Antoine is the principal developer of the grid and he doesn't know well the licenses that he values.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 22:15, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:You can draft such a questionnaire, send it to the interested parties, collect answers and publish them verbatim somewhere (preferably on a separate page because it may be quite long).<br />
:But the responsibility argument is nonsense: there is no risk for third-party organizations to get sued for what we say here, since they don't officially take part. Also, it is obvious this page is not legal advice. As is said in the first paragraph: ''"Endly, we want to stress that, before choosing a license, you must read the license text carefully. No summary, no matter how attractive or reassuring, can replace detailed understanding of the license itself."'' I believe this disclaimer is clear enough, but you can suggest an alternative if you think it's not.<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:20, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::The problem is not legal, the problem is ethical. For example, you said that GFDL doesn't contain an anti-DRM clause and you wrote "no" in the grid. Without my providential correction, your words would still be see as true by many people. This is a negative fact for FSF. You don't understand this problem?? :-( We can draft a questionnaire '''together'''. I'm democratic, Antoine.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 15:41, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::It's a wiki and everyone can contribute. If you hadn't asked for the correction someone else would have suggested it later. <br />
:::You can make a first proposal for the questionnaire if you want (a separate page would certainly be more practical). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:53, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::I'm making it. Your criticism is distracted. :-)--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 18:48, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Also see: [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/LicenceEvaluation My License Page at Free Culture UK], which is an earlier effort towards license evaluation. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:48, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
=== Layout ===<br />
<br />
I'm sorry for my non-discussed crass changing of the grid, but I hope you still appreciate my engagement. Please fix/debate/discuss/make recommendations. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 20:09, 25 November 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Against DRM 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
In my opinion, '''''Against DRM 1.0''''' is a free content license.<br />
<br />
*''This license is incompatible with any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts which are authorised or not authorised by licensor: this incompatibility causes the inapplicability of the license to the work.''<br />
<br />
*''Any breach of this license [...] will automatically retroactively void this license.''<br />
<br />
The sense is clear: '''licensor''' cannot license with ''Against DRM 1.0'' a work protected by DRM, because the license is inapplicable to works protected by DRM.<br />
'''Inapplicability of the license => no juridical effects.'''<br />
<br />
'''Licensee''' cannot protect the work or derivative works with DRM: if licensee protect the work or derivative works with DRM, the license will be '''void'''.<br />
<br />
Where is the vagueness? --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 02:32, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I find the "incompatible with .. acts which are authorised or not authorised" passage to be vague. Which acts, exactly, are we talking about? Could this mean that a licensor can say: "I disagree with your usage of encryption to conceal your personal data, as this is not an act which I have authorized?" Moreover, there is not even a reference to the work itself in the passage, so it's not clear to me that it only refers to "acts" which are related to the work. I think this passage needs to be explicit that we are talking about reducing the rights of ''others'' to the work through DRM.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Which acts, exactly, are we talking about?<br />
<br />
It's very simple: '''what does licensor authorize with the license?''' :-)<br />
<br />
''4. Grant of rights<br />
<br />
'''''Licensor authorizes licensee to exercise the following rights'':'''<br />
<br />
a. right of reproduction; ('''act of reproduction, act of multiplication...''')<br />
<br />
b. right of distribution; ('''act of distribution, act of diffusion...''') <br />
<br />
etc. etc. etc.<br />
<br />
The law (EUCD) say:<br />
''the expression ‘technological measures’ means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict '''acts [...] which are not authorised by the rightholder''' of any copyright or any right related to copyright.''<br />
<br />
Where is the vagueness?<br />
<br />
The sense is clear; these acts are: reproduction, distribution... and any<br />
copyright or any right related to copyright.<br />
--[[User:Tom|Tom]] 03:12, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I do agree with Erik, the wording is much too broad and vague. "acts which are authorised or not authorised" is completely unacceptable as it can mean anything (acts which are not authorized, by construction, are not part of license, in contrast to what you would like to let us think).<br />
<br />
::Instead "acts which are not authorized" are part of the license: these acts concern possible '''moral rights'''. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:By the way, 1) EUCD is not a law but an European directive 2) when the law is vague or dishonest, it is not helpful to base an argument on it. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::The law (EUCD is applied with national laws) is law: if you want legally oppose DRM, you must speak the language of the law. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::There is no point in trying to oppose ''what the law defines as DRM'' rather than ''what you find immoral''. About EUCD, what part of "European directive" don't you understand? Each country drafts its own transposition of EUCD and transpositions can be ''very different'' from the original. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:28, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::A license is a legal instrument and a legal instrument must be based on law. A license not based on law is not much effective and a license not much effective realizes nothing (moral principles, ideals etc). I think that you don't know directives' compulsoriness. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 20:26, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::Merely repeating yourself without reading what other people answered does not make you right... I guess this makes the thread dead, unless you want to bring fresh arguments onto the table (like on the cc-fr mailing-list, by the way). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:12, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::Other people? Who? I'm sorry but I'm not accustomed to uncivil tones of voice. You can speak with other people. :-) Thanks. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 11:08, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No need to use strong terms like "completely unacceptable", I'm sure the Against DRM license has good intentions which are very much in line with the goals of the definition. The question is, could it be clarified and improved? Tom, could you perhaps state what your position is in this matter - are you directly involved with the license? If so, we might be able to hook you up with some legal people from Creative Commons or Wikimedia.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 13:28, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: Against DRM is a new, redundant and minor license. It is not clear that it has been drafted by a legal professional. Both the FDL and the CC licenses have anti-DRM clauses. License proliferation is a bad thing, and there are already too many licenses with the CC license variants alone. Freedom Defined should not reproduce in Free Culture the damage that OSI are seeking to undo in Free Software. Promoting Against DRM is not a good idea, however good its intentions are. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:44, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I'm not involved with the license: I'm a jurist and I like this license for many reasons (what you call "vagueness", I call, in this case, "elasticity" and "knowledge of right").<br />
A license is a technical text that must be analyzed with a technical background.<br />
In my opinion, in this simple license nothing is casual. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:One might also refer to the [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00095.html debian-legal thread] about Against DRM 1.0. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Superficial discussion. :-) --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 15:18, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== GNU General Public License ==<br />
<br />
Any reason this license isn't included as a free content license? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: It is, under "all free software licenses".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Apologies, I missed that. Wouldn't it be better to explicitly list the GPL as many individuals use it as both a software and contennt license? - [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:36, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: Erm, it is, under "all free software licenses", which is followed by, "including the GNU GPL ..", but feel free to arrange the page differently.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 22:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I've tried to change the wording so as to make it explicit that the GPL is a proper free content license. Feel free to improve :) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:51, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== License characterization ==<br />
<br />
I think the current rough list is fine at the moment (the high priority task is to have a clear, precise, ethically correct, internationally secure Definition ;-)).<br />
However, in the future it will be useful to characterize the licenses more precisely according to a grid of criteria. Here are some criteria I suggest:<br />
<br />
=== Copyleft / non-copyleft ===<br />
<br />
Well, this is easy. Let's not forget about "agregation" however. For example, the GPL is a copyleft license which allows agregation with non-GPL works; the FAL is a copyleft license which does not allow agregation with non-FAL works (unless the resulting work is not considered a derived work under copyright law).<br />
<br />
=== Attribution / non-attribution ===<br />
<br />
Easy as well.<br />
<br />
=== Access to source code ===<br />
<br />
The GNU GPL mandates access to source code. The GFDL mentions transparent versions, which may (may not??) equate to source code.<br />
I don't know about any other free content licenses requiring access to source code; are there any?<br />
<br />
:The GFDL requires a source copy of the document, which must also be "Transparent" (that is, a simple, open standard format). The [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html Design Science License] also requires a source copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:57, 7 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
=== Internationalization scheme (translation / adaptation) ===<br />
<br />
This one is rarely mentioned. There are roughly two main internationalization schemes currently:<br />
* the GNU/FAL style: GNU licenses have only one legally binding version which is the original English one. The Free Art License is translated into several languages but translations are literal. The net effect is similar in both cases: the exact same concepts and clauses apply to everyone in the world.<br />
* the CC style: licenses are not just translated, they are ''adapted''. Consequently, licenses can be slightly different. For example, the French CC licenses have different wordings, warnings and restrictions compared to the American ones.<br />
<br />
It is not obvious whether both of these schemes make for safe international interoperability. However, it is important that the issue is explained.<br />
<br />
==Overhaul==<br />
<br />
Ok, so I've finally tried to give a clear structure to the page. I'm not sure to what level of detail we must go when talking about each license. In any case, help is welcome since the list is far from exhaustive.<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:10, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Er, 82.60.46.173, could you log in and tell who you are? It is easier to collaborate with human beings than with IP addresses ;)<br />
About your edits:<br />
* I would like to know why you removed the blurb about the Against-DRM License; it is an important question to know who wrote a license, so that we also understand their philosophy and their intents for the future; <br />
<br />
Movimento Costozero ( http://www.costozero.org/ ) is one of the most important association in Italy for digital freedoms ( http://www.costozero.org/wai/p10.html ). They invented Copyzero ( http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyzero ) and all their projects (for example, [http://www.scarichiamoli.org/main.php?page=presentazione "Scarichiamoli!" ], supported by Stallman, Lessig and Creative Commons Italy) aim at freedom.<br />
It's sufficient?<br>--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 01:27, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:The problem is not whether it's sufficient, it's why the Against DRM web site does not state any of this. A whois result is not a very interesting information since it doesn't indicate a statement of intent. I think it would be clearer if the Against DRM web site made a clear statement about its authorship, and also provided at least some insight into what philosophical values it wants to promote. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: The problem was that you did not know who wroted the license, his philosophy etc.. Now you know who wrote the license, his phylosophy etc. ... but the problem is that the Against DRM web site does not state any information about who wrote the license. :-) What can I say you?? Contact them! Speak with them. :-) --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:36, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::The problem is not for me, it's for potential users of the licence and for the general public. Inquiring in private is not practical and is not a sign that the authors are ''willing'' to provide information. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::This is your opinion. --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:06, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I don't understand the problem, Antoine: if an anonymous killer or Osama bin Laden publish a good free license, I use and suggest that license because it's a good free license. STOP. If Lessig publish a not free license ( this, for example: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/devnations/2.0/legalcode ), I don't use it. STOP. We must value only if a license is free. However, it seems that we know who writed that license and his philosophy... so I really don't understand the problem.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 10:26, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree with you. A license (especially a ''copyleft license'') also often comes with an ecosystem, a community of authors sharing together some values. It is not an ''ad hominem'' argument as you try to make it look like. Licenses don't only have a legal value, they have a social and normative value. That's why the intent of the authors, the existence of a community are important. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::A license is a legal text. STOP. If Osama bin Laden publish a good legal text, I use it with any problem. However, there is a not secret organization behind that license. Where is the problem, Antoine? Why do you ignore this? --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 12:32, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::Again, the problem is explained above. I'm not interested in repeating myself...<br />
::::::As for ''"a license is a legal text. STOP."'', we'll have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:42, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::We have two different opinions: where is the problem? It seems that you want always the last word. :-) No problem! The last word is your!--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 20:19, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::Actually, I agree with Bob4 here. Of course a license is also accompanied by a community, but the community is nothing without a properly drafted and clear license. What is important is whether a license permits the publication of free content or not according to our definition, everything else is fluff. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:26, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::Yes, everything else is fluff. --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:06, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Who wrote Free Art License? <br><br />
You are Antoine Moreau?<br />
Can you tell me about your philosophy and your intents for the future?<br />
I'm sorry but I don't know you. You have an organization (without irony)?--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 01:32, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'm Antoine Pitrou, Antoine Moreau is a different person. As for the Free Art License, like most other licenses (including GNU and CC ones), its web site features detailed information about the history of the license, its intent, its authors, etc. (granted, many of those texts are in French) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Related rights==<br />
<br />
About "related rights", I don't agree that other licenses reserve them as you state. For example, the Free Art License is meant to grant them to the user (clause 2.1). Creative Commons licenses also grant them (clause 3c and 3d in by-sa 2.5).<br />
I welcome your help in solving these points. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:39, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
** ''2.1 FREEDOM TO COPY (OR OF REPRODUCTION)<br />
<br />
You have the right to copy this work of art for your personal use, for your friends or for any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose.''<br />
<br />
This is another thing: this is the freedom to copy the work (economic right)... all free content licenses grant this (the author/licensor grant this right).<br />
Related rights aren't rights of the author; they are rights of producers and executors.<br />
An example:<br />
I'm an author of a song and I release it under Free Art License.<br />
A producer takes my song and produces a CD with my song (new execution of my song): producer and executors '''acquire related rights over CD and registrations'''.<br />
So you can copy and distribute the work (the corpus mystichum). You can copy the registrations (the corpus mechanicum) for '''private use''' (private copy).<br />
But you cannot copy and distribute (etc, etc.) these certain registrations.<br />
<br />
Which is the solution?<br />
<br />
"Against DRM" say:<br />
<br />
'''... performances of the work, phonograms in which the work is fixed, broadcastings of the work must be released with a license that provides:<br><br />
a. the renunciation to exclusive exercise of rights referred to in the articles 4 and 5 (copyrights + related rights);<br>'''<br />
<br />
You can grab CD and share mp3 only if producer and executors expressly renounce to their exclusive rights (related rights)! Free Art License doesn't speak about related rights. Free Art License speak only about copyrights (the rights of the author).--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 01:27, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Did I say 2.1? I'm sorry, that should have read 2.2. Clause 2.2 of the FAL is "''2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)''". Freedom to interpret and freedom of representation covers related rights, at least as I understand it. Clause 2.3 of the FAL also talks about "''distribution (or representation) of the modified copy''".<br />
:Do you agree that CC licenses (at least by and by-sa) also grant related rights? (clauses 3c and 3d in [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode by-sa 2.5])<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Creative Commons License say:<br />
<br />
'''For the avoidance of doubt''', where the work is a musical composition:<br><br />
<br />
'''Performance Royalties''' Under Blanket Licenses.<br> Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a performance rights society (e.g. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), royalties for the public performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work.<br><br />
'''Mechanical Rights''' and Statutory Royalties.<br> Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a music rights agency or designated agent (e.g. Harry Fox Agency), royalties for any phonorecord You create from the Work ("cover version") and distribute, subject to the compulsory license created by 17 USC Section 115 of the US Copyright Act (or the equivalent in other jurisdictions).<br><br />
<br />
These royalties are possible only because some related rights (on corpus mechanicum) are exclusive.<br />
So CCPL expressly reserved related rights for music ('''for the avoidance of doubt''': infact, these related rights - as I said - are reserved also without this specification).''' --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:09, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:My English dictionary tells me the verb ''to waive'' means ''to renounce one's rights''. Therefore, the meaning of this clause is certainly the opposite of what you are saying: the licensor (not licensee) ''gives up his rights'' to collect royalties related to performance and the like.<br />
:Also, you said nothing about [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode clauses 3c and 3d] in by-sa. You can't ignore them, can you?<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:: Sorry I omitted the most important part (the final part):<br />
The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats. '''All rights not expressly granted by Licensor are hereby reserved.'''<br />
<br />
As in Free Art License, Licensor grant '''his''' rights (also related rights, but '''his''' related rights).<br />
Instead, '''License expressly reserves related rights that Licensor not granted''' (logically also related rights of '''other persons''': executors and procuders). It's very simple: you can consult Creative Commons about this.<br />
'''Only in "Against DRM" related rights are copylefted.'''<br />
<br />
This is the great invention of this license, imho.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 14:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:No doubt it's an interesting point, but it doesn't justify negating the fact that other licenses do provide related rights; the license list is not here to promote a particular license. I'll modify your last edit so as to give more useful information.<br />
:: Obviously other licenses grant '''licensor's related rights'''; my old grid said: ''Copylefted related rights'' -> ''NO/YES''. It was correct. Now the grid says: ''Related rights'' -> ''-/granted/ganted+copyleft''. It's correct too.<br />
<br />
I don't promote a particular license.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:21, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:By the way, when you significantly modify existing contents in a page, could you justify your edits somewhere in the discussion page? Thanks in advance. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:20, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:: Sure. --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:21, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Now I see Free Art License . :-)--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)<br />
<br />
You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions:<br><br />
- attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found,<br />
- specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,<br><br />
- specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the copies.<br><br />
<br />
Author/licensor is speaking about his rights: logically licensor give you, for example, the registration x of his song.<br />
He authorises you to copy registration x (because he is the owner of the related rights concerning registration x). But what about registration y executed by A and produced by B?<br />
The license doesn't bind executors and producers to the renunciation of their future related rights.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 02:28, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:The only interpretation you ''could'' draw (and I'm ''not'' convinced it's the proper one) is that the Free Art License is not copyleft when it comes to related rights. But it doesn't mean it "reserves" them since they are explicitly granted to the user.<br />
:--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:12, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Only the related rights of the author (as executor and/or producer) are (logically) free (otherwise you cannot dowload that copy of the work!).<br />
::But any other related right is reserved (expressly reserved in CCPL).<br />
::Infact, I maked an example concerning future related rights of other persons.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 14:58, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I just had [http://www.april.org/wws/arc/copyleft_attitude/2006-05/msg00042.html an answer] from a lawyer who interprets section 3 of the FAL ("''3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK : All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents) into another work which would not be subject to this license.''") as concerning all possible uses of the work in subsequent work, including performances, recordings, etc. In that interpretation, related rights are copylefted under the FAL.<br />
::: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:56, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::: ''Les droits voisins ne portent pas atteinte aux droits des auteurs.'' Yes: I can reproduce, distribute, modify... the work (corpus mystichum) but I cannot distribute, reproduce, modify... for example, a certain registration (corpus mechanichum) of the work. It's simple. <br />
::::Many classical compositions are in public domain (so I can reproduce, distribute, modify... these compositions): but I cannot reproduce, distribute, modify... the version of Von Karajan produced by ''Deutsche grammophon''--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 11:46, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Carlos, I agree with your point about public domain, but it was not the argument I was making. Public domain is not transitive (copyleft) so it's no surprise that you can make proprietary works from public domain works. I quoted a specific clause ("''3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK''") which a lawyer thinks implies copyleft for related rights. I'm not claiming lawyers are always right (often they don't agree between themselves ;-)) but it's an interesting interpretation at least. What do you think about it?<br />
:::::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:25, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::''All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents) into '''another work''' which would not be subject to this license.''<br />
::::::An execution of the work is not another work! A certain registration of "work x" is not another work ("work y")!<br />
::::::Another work is a new work (work y) that contains work x (the original or derivate work released under the license).<br />
::::::So the incorporation does not concern related rights: the incorporation concerns copyrights on '''collective works'''. You can say this to the lawyer. :-)--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 13:13, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Why do you say an execution is not another work? It involves a creative effort from the executor (perfomer, etc.), which seems to make it qualify as a genuine work. If I take some existing lyrics and sing them, then I'm creating a work because singing qualifies as a creative action.<br />
<br />
::::::::'''No! This is a great, great error, Antoine''' The creativity of performers doesn't concern copyrights but related rights! When I play Sting, the author is Sting! Sting has the copyrights, I have related rights on that registration. Is it clear? And '''Sting cannot sell my performance of his song!''' Do you unerstand what I'm saying? If we don't know these basis, it's dangerous to work on this project.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 13:40, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I understand what you are saying, but I don't understand how it answers the question. The question is "why do you think performing a work does not create a separate or derived work?". The fact that the performer is not considered author the same way the original author is (the difference is in what economic rights are granted, AFAIK), does not mean the performance is not a work in itself. It seems to me that these are two separate questions. Aren't they?<br />
:::::::::If you want, I can try to put you in contact with the person I was talking about. Perhaps it is easier if you can discuss it together by e-mail?<br />
:::::::::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:04, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::::::He answered to you. A '''copyrightable work''' is object of '''immaterial property'''. A '''derivative work''' is not a certain material execution of '''the same work'''. A derivative work of a composition is a different composition, a composition based upon the original work but, for example, with a different melody in certain parts (or with a new arrangement... ).<br />
Two links for Antoine: <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work <br />
<br />
http://www.artslaw.org/DERIV.HTM <br />
<br />
(Antoine I suggest you to deepen your knowledges about copyright, related rights, derivative works etc etc). --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 15:09, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::An interpretation or performance is also ''the object of "immaterial property"'' (related rights are a form of "immaterial property"), so I suggest you find a more compelling argument.<br />
:::::::::::Also, let me remind you that the discussion is about a specific clause in the FAL. If you don't want to elaborate about the precise point which has been made, then please start a new discussion thread elsewhere. <br />
:::::::::::Oh, and please indent your comments properly, thx. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:29, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::::::::Ok, it's impossible to speak with you! :-(<br />
You said that derivative works are also the executions of a work. It is not true! If you don't believe to me, see that links! What means "indent your comments properly"??--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 15:38, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I did not say that. I said that, in my opinion, they should be considered ''either'' separate works ''or'' derivative work (please note the alternative). The point was that the FAL covers both (as for CC-BY-SA, I did not check).<br />
::::::::::::::Your opinion... ok ok. :-)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::(as for legal status of the performer, in French right the performer has moral rights on his performance - article [http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/VisuArticleCode;jsessionid=ExCJYN2Aj9HslC8Jihk2PYHxtCJ7m80Et0Mqi5sQyz5zkfzM2I2J!-495922973!iwsspad.legifrance.tours.ort.fr!10038!-1!2065712317!iwsspad3.legifrance.tours.ort.fr!10038!-1?commun=&code=&h0=CPROINTL.rcv&h1=1&h3=22 L212-2]).<br />
::::::::::::::Where I can read that, in France, a performance is a derivative work or a "separate work"? The creative work is the copyrightable work. See also: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travail_d%C3%A9riv%C3%A9 (in french: Un travail dérivé suppose une '''transformation''', '''modification''' ou '''adaptation''' qui constitue par elle même '''une création susceptible d'être protégée par le droit d'auteur'''. Only an author can make a copyrightable work or a copyrightable derivative work. A simple performer or a simple producer cannot make derivative works! Perhaps you don't know what juridically means the term '''work''' in the copyright laws. --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 16:13, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::Er, "copyright" does not exist in French right. There are "patrimonial rights", which belong to the author as well as to the performer (although in a different extent and with different modalities). So if you are looking to know whether performances and representations are "equivalent-copyrightable" in France, yes they are: they are the object of patrimonial rights.<br />
:::::::::::::::: You don't know what you say. :-/ '''You must study!''' Patrimonial rights aren't related rights! '''Also the terms are different! (La durée des droits patrimoniaux est de 70 ans à partir du 1er janvier suivant le décès de l'auteur. La durée de protection du droit voisin est de 50 ans à dater de la prestation. )''' In France you have '''Droits patrimoniaux''' (economic rights) and '''[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droits_voisins_du_droit_d%27auteur Droits voisins]''' (related rights). In France patrimonial rights regard the author, instead related rights regard: artistes interprètes, producteurs de phonogrammes et de vidéogrammes, entreprises de communication audiovisuelle. I'm tired Antoine, very tired. :-( --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 18:17, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::::You are wrong. ''Droits patrimoniaux'' do include ''droits voisins''. They are explicitly mentioned in [http://celog.fr/cpi/livre2.htm#c1 article 211-4] in the ''livre des droits voisins'' (''"La durée des droits patrimoniaux objet du présent titre (...)"'': this implies owners of related rights do enjoy patrimonial rights).<br />
:::::::::::::::::Les droits patrimoniaux objet du présent titre: LES DROITS VOISINS DU DROIT D'AUTEUR! There are patrimonial rights that regard author and (different) patrimonial rights that regard performers and producers: these patrimonial rights aren't author's rights! <br />
<br />
::::::::::::::::::That's exactly what I said two messages above, so perhaps you could have read it instead of trolling (''There are "patrimonial rights", which belong to the author as well as to the performer (although in a different extent and with different modalities''). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:10, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::::::::::::::I'm not a troll. I'm helping you to understand. Do you remember the question? '''What does french law say about derivative works?''' Does french law say that performances are derivative works?? No! Performances are simple executions of the work! Performances aren't new versions of the work! Only the authors make new versions of works. A performer is not an author!! And a producer makes a mechanical reproduction of a work: he's not an author! '''Work is only the object of a creation!''' An execution isn't a work but a reproduction of a work. An arrangement is a derivative work! See your law and stop FUD.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 19:24, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::::::::::::::: In all the world works and derivative works are works of an author. An author is not a performer or a producer. A big flame for a simple thing.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 15:41, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
http://celog.fr/cpi/sommaires/livre_1.htm Droit des auteurs are '''author's moral rights''' and '''author's patrimonial rights'''. Related rights (DROITS VOISINS DU DROIT D'AUTEU) aren't '''author's patrimonial rights'''. If you aren't inclined to know the truth, this is your problem.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 19:04, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::But talking about copyrightable/non-copyrightable is misleading in the context of French law. I'll try to ask the FAL authors if I meet them soon. Perhaps they can clarify in a future version of the license. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 17:01, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Carlos, if you hold the view that a performance is not a separate work, then the performance cannot be released under a separate license either (at least not without consent from the author).<br />
: What is a ''separate work''? This is not a juridical definition. ''Derivative work'' is a juridical definition. A performance is not a work! A performance is an '''execution of a work'''!<br />
''Against DRM'' says:<br />
''Derivative works, performances of the work, phonograms in which the work is fixed, broadcastings of the work must be released with a license that provides [...]''.<br />
Derivative works are a thing (new derivative creations of another author) and performances, phonograms etc are another thing (they aren't object of the action of an author)... and this is juridically correct. It seems that you don't understand this easy concept.--[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 20:54, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
So I still don't understand what the problem with FAL and CC BY-SA is (both are copyleft and grant related rights). Btw., Tomos also provided an answer for CC at the end of this section).<br />
: Copyleft only for copyrights, not for related rights. The copyleft clauses are different.<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, "Against DRM" applies to "works of the mind" which by your own reasoning don't include performances of a work: so it cannot be applied to a performance although clause 7 seems to mandate it.<br />
All in all, I'm still not convinced that this "copyleft related rights" is a real distinctive point. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:24, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
: The license treats copyrights and related rights in two different points: why do you continue to muddle the things? However, contact a jurist or a lawyer, I think that is the only solution in your case. :-) --[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] 20:54, 26 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I would like you to ''answer'' the question above. As I said, I already contacted a lawyer on a mailing-list, who thinks there is no problem with the FAL's treatment of related rights.<br />
::Once again, there is also an answer by Tomos below which you still did not consider.<br />
::Since the Against DRM people are the only one raising this "related rights" concern, I believe it's not my task to clarify the matter. If you don't want to explain it, then please don't make further edits to the pages either, because I'm not willing to leave a distinction which doesn't seem shared by anybody but you.<br />
::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:12, 29 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Do we know for a fact that the GPL and GNU FDL do not cover related rights? Aren't related works covered by derivative works language? Is this important in all jurisdictions? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:16, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
: Related rights does not regard software. So GPL (and the other software licenses) does not speak about related rights. It's normal. --[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 20:32, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::I appreciate the response, but that isn't what I asked: Do we know for a fact that the GPL and GNU FDL do not cover related rights? Aren't related works covered by derivative works language? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:43, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::Copyrights and related rights are two different types of rights: a license regulates related rights only if the license expressly speaks about these specific rights. Otherwise the derivative works language regard only copyrights... and related rights are automatically reserved.<br />
For example, '''performance right''' allows music creators to claim royalties when their works are played. When you hear music (on the radio, TV, stage or in public), the composer usually receives royalties for this use.<br />
'''Mechanical right''' (the word "mechanical" indicates the use of a mechanical device to play the music) allows creators to claim royalties when their works are recorded. <br />
If the license does not speak about these rights (the juridical term is: related rights), the related rights owner keep the exclusive right to claim these royalties.<br />
In many countries related rights does not regard only royalties but also reproduction, modification, copy etc etc<br />
(for example, a performer can forbid to copy his execution of a song related under a free license that not speak about related rights). <br />
Attention, there is a '''(copy)right to copy etc etc''' (author's right) and a '''related right to copy etc etc''' (right of the author, performers and producers): they are different but the object is the same (this makes misunderstandings).<br />
Only if both rights are granted to you, you can copy (etc etc) the work.--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 00:20, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I'm asking myself the same question, btw. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:04, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I cannot answer this question. But I raised this question and once at CC-license list [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-November/002854.html] in the context of proposed introduction of CC-BY-SA - GFDL compatibility. CC's responce on this matter is available at [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20051216/012205a3/FDLCompatibilityListComments-0001.pdf here]<br />
::::In short, the answer is uncertain to CC people's eyes, though they see it possible that the related rights are covered by GFDL. <br />
::::[[User:Tomos|Tomos]] 12:18, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::What do they think about the interpretation that CC-BY-SA does not copyleft related rights (i.e. grants them but does not guarantee that they will be granted to subsequent users too)? Could you try to ask them what they think about it (and how they intended it)?<br />
:::::Thank you :-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:54, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I am afraid I don't understand the question.<br />
::::::Are you talking about granting of related rights by the original licensor to users of derivative works? If so, this particular clause answers your question: ''"Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License."'' ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode CC-BY-SA 2.5] 8(b)). This means that if I compose a song, and someone performs it or arrange it, listener of the performance as well as the recipient of the arranged song will be granted the same set of rights from me as the performer and the arranger are granted.<br />
::::::Or is your question about if a licensee has to grant his rights in the same manner as the original licensor? If so, the answer seems to my eyes to be in the first part of 4(b): ''"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)."'' This means, using the same hypothetical example, the performer and arranger are required to grant substantially the same set of their rights to the users of their works as I did to them.<br />
::::::Combined, related rights related to the original work, its derivatives, and any of performances thereof are granted to licensees.<br />
::::::But well, I cannot give any official words of CC, and I am not a lawyer. If difficult question exists, I am more than happy to relay it to the list. (Though questions posted there are not answered in official manner many times.) [[User:Tomos|Tomos]] 17:19, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== GPL Non-Attribution? ==<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if the GPL should be categorised as a non-attribution license: isn't the requirement that it requires that the original copyright notice be kept equivalent to attribution? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:33, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:I'm not sure either. I've tried to talk about this point in the Attribution section. It seems to me that often, copyright notice and authorship notice are separate; the copyright notice merely mentions the main or initial author (or the corporate copyright holder), while the authorship notice lists all contributors. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:41, 20 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::Can the copyright notice not also be used as a mechanism for attribution as well? I.e. by listing all the contributors in the copyright section. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 19:29, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::I think the mere difference is that you can do it but you don't require others to do so. Subsequent versions of the work may adopt a different policy (for example including contributors' work without giving authorship), without the original authors having a word in it. An Attribution clause prevents that.<br />
:::As for knowing whether this is important, well... ;) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:47, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::Is that a substantial difference? Subsequent contributors can choose to list authors in the copyright notice. Optional attribution is still attribution. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:11, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::The attribution clause is a requirement, just like copyleft or source code requirements. That's the whole point of it ;-) Of course, you can always grant more rights than the license asks you to. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:38, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::::Why do you say that, Antoine, that seems like a spurious requirement for an attribution license. Why should we require attribution even on anonymous, unwilling contributors? The attribution in the GPL is still required in the sense that you must maintain copyright notices. What more is required? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:42, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::Ricardo, I'm not saying that ''we should require'' attribution for every contribution, I'm saying that some licenses do and some licenses don't. All of them are free, it's just a distinctive point that some people will find important.<br />
:::::::Perhaps we may drop the "attribution" column in the grid if everybody finds it is useless, but I don't think it is (considering for example that non-attribution CC licenses were dropped after it was found that very few people were using them). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:00, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I also note that you list the attribution in the GFDL as "partial" - whatever that means. This seems unncessary. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:47, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
:::::::It is partial because it does not mandate that any significant contributor is mentioned, just the "five principal authors" (whatever that means since the GFDL doesn't precise). Therefore it is not really what other licenses call attribution. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:00, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Ricardo, this is what the GPL says:<br />
"''You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately '''publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice''' and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.''"<br />
(emphasis mine)<br />
<br />
I still do not see "appropriate copyright notice" as a proper recognition of authorship (we do not know what "appropriate" means here btw.). A copyright notice is a legal statement but it does not state who is (are) the actual author(s) of the work. A movie can be "copyright Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer".<br />
<br />
For example, if you look at the source tree for a project like [http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/ GCC], the "copyright notice" in the [http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/README?rev=1.5&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup README] file does not contain authorship. There is also a [http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/MAINTAINERS?rev=1.442&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup MAINTAINERS] file which does not qualify as a copyright notice, and probably doesn't contain complete authorship information.<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:45, 22 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Anti-DRM provisions ==<br />
<br />
Hi everyone,<br />
<br />
I'm not sure why some people seem to consider that the GPL and GFDL include some anti-DRM provisions.<br />
* The GPL v2 clearly doesn't (v3 should remain off-topic until it is officially released, IMHO).<br />
* As for the GFDL, I don't think "transparent copies" can be considered "anti-DRM" in the same way as the CC licenses. The GFDL does not forbid use of DRM, it only mentions that you must ''also'' provide a copy in a transparent format.<br />
<br />
Your thoughts?<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 19:43, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
GFDL:<br />
''You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.''<br />
Antoine, this is DRM!--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 20:11, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Indeed, Antoine, if you are preparing this page you should really be reading the licenses in question more carefully. I'm also not at all certain why we need to provide a license matrix: surely, on this site, all we care about is whether a license is free content or not, according to our own definition. I'm sure the information is useful, but it seems useless for our purposes other than as some attempt to bash other, non-CC and non-AL licenses. -[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:19, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I similarly note that the GFDL *is* an attribution license:<br />
::''List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.''[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html]<br />
:I would recommend you familiarise yourself with the licenses in question. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:23, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::The matrix is not meant as an absolute reference, just to give a clearer view of the landscape. Erik's request was for a license guide and I thought categorizing licenses against a set of criteria would bring a bit of clarity in the landscape.<br />
::We could just make a textual description of each license, but it would be even more subject to judgemental commentary (for example, the FSF's commentary in their list of licenses is usually far from neutral; it is not a problem for the FSF since it is really one person's voice). So I'm not sure what alternative can be found which would be both useful and rather objective.<br />
::Thanks for the corrections on the GFDL, by the way.<br />
::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:34, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I this best solution is to simply maintaining a list of free and non-free content licenses with descriptions of why they are or are not free content, as per the FSF. The matrix as it stands seems designed to favor CC licenses. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 20:39, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Hmm, I'm a bit confused if the matrix really seems designed to favor CC. What makes you think it is? I am not a CC fan...<br />
::::I have chosen some initial criteria that I found were important. I had already proposed this criteria in the discussion page (see [[#License_characterization]]). Other people added additional criteria (namely, "Anti-DRM" and "Related Rights").<br />
::::As I said [[Licenses#Criteria_for_choosing_a_license|in the page]], the criteria are not meant to indicate whether a license is "good" or "bad" (some people prefer copyleft, others non-copyleft, same for anti-DRM clauses, etc.) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:53, 21 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::I suppose it was all the "no"s listed against the GNU licenses as opposed to all the "yes"'s listed against the other non-GNU licenses. I think we are confusing this wiki with Wikipedia: we do not care about the aspects of licenses (other organisations already provide this infomation, such as the CC). What we do care about is whether a license is free or non-free and we should focus on providing this infomation which we can't really do until we actually have a final and agreed upon FCD. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:46, 24 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== BSD advertising clause ==<br />
<br />
Rob, I've changed your edits regarding the advertising clause in the original BSD license. First, the FSF [http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#OriginalBSD does not consider it non-free] (''"This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the `obnoxious BSD advertising clause'. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free."'').<br />
<br />
Second, this is not the same as attribution since the advertising clause requires a specific sentence in "''all advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software''" - which is much broader than just derivative works, and stricter than asking to mention the name of authors (as the FSF [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html remarks], ''"other developers did not copy the clause verbatim. They changed it, replacing `University of California' with their own institution or their own names. The result is a plethora of licenses, '''requiring a plethora of different sentences'''."'' (emphasis mine)).<br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:54, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== I would like to see a CC-By-SA with source or 'transparent copy' requirement ==<br />
<br />
GFDL is too convoluted. DSL lacks attribution (though attribution is often effort-free with source req). Most anti-DRM sections are either too broad (GFDL) or too convoluted (GPL v3 draft). So maybe a CC-By-SA+TS (TS=transparent source). <br />
<br />
There is another dimension to things too, mainly pointed out in the GPL vs. L-GPL. Whether the Share-Alike / copyleft is viral when it comes to integration of the object into a larger object.<br />
<br />
== (not) adding new licenses ==<br />
<br />
Hi. Just saw some people added the LGPL and the "Libre Commons License" to the license list. While adding the LGPL is arguably justified (it's one of the prominent software licenses), I don't agree about the Libre Commons License. The Libre Commons Licenses are not legal licenses. They do not give the rights that are mentioned in the definition. Whatever the intent behind these licenses, we cannot fool the readers into thinking that using them will legally guarantee that their works are free. So let's remove them.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:36, 16 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Proposed Additions of New Licenses ==<br />
<br />
{|border="1" style="text-align:center"<br />
! License<br />
! [[#Intended scope|Intended scope]]<br />
! [[#Copyleft|Copyleft]]<br />
! [[#Practical modifiability|Practical modifiability]]<br />
! [[#Attribution|Attribution]]<br />
! [[#Related rights|Related rights]]<br />
! [[#Anti-DRM|Anti-DRM]]<br />
! [[#Worldwide applicability|Worldwide applicability]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[#Libertarian Licence|Libertarian Licence]]<br />
| generic<br />
| yes; reflexive<br />
| no<br />
| no<br />
| reflexive<br />
| yes<br />
| same licence (English version) <br />
|}<br />
<br />
===The Libertarian Licence===<br />
<br />
You are free to take any liberties you wish with my published work, with but one constraint: The liberties you take may not be withheld from those to whom you give my work (or your combined/derivative work), who you must similarly constrain.<br />
<br />
[[User:81.153.164.134|81.153.164.134]] 11:43, 1 June 2007 (CEST) (Crosbie Fitch)<br />
<br />
== Not Quite a Licence ==<br />
<br />
While not really a license, I think that the [http://flickr.com/commons/usage/ Rights Statement] of “no known copyright restrictions” as used on Flickr's Commons warrants a mention. I'm not sure this is the right place but there does not seem to be a page (at least I cannot find it) that discusses the Public Domain and cultural works which are Free because no one claims rights upon them. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 03:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:Inkwina&diff=4239User:Inkwina2008-04-09T05:27:55Z<p>Inkwina: Undo revision 4237 by 200.179.174.84 (Talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>vide: http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Phsi</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Permissible_restrictions&diff=4238Permissible restrictions2008-04-09T05:27:42Z<p>Inkwina: Undo revision 4236 by 64.157.4.105 (Talk)</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>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Logos_and_buttons&diff=3319Talk:Logos and buttons2007-07-10T10:38:12Z<p>Inkwina: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi. Just an idea about the buttons: Please make it more international, by using symbols instead of text (like Attribution, Share-Alike). Regards--[[User:77.234.80.162|77.234.80.162]] 23:18, 16 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
Should we avoid duplicating Creative Commons work? - and focus on icons for free/libre content? - e.g. CC-By and Public Domain are arguably non-free/libre - as both allow derived works (such as translations and localisations) to be released under more restrictive licenses. [[User:Ktucker|Kim]] 13:48, 5 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: I strongly disagree. There is no higher degree of freedom than the absence of copyright. To argue that the works of Shakespeare are not ''libre'' because they are not under a copyleft license is bizarre to me. This is also in line with the [[definition]], which permits copyleft, but does not require it.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 15:45, 5 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
Thanks Erik. Some comments: [[Discussion of copyleft]]<br />
<br />
== Thinking About Buttons ==<br />
<br />
The buttons, in my opinion, still need a little more work. What we need to do is provide some HTML through which people can include the buttons on their sites. This HTML needs to include a link to the button, which is easy enough, but it should also include the necessary RDF and a link, somewhere back to the deed on the CC site. This should be, I think, in ''addition'' to the link to a license-specific page in our wiki. I'm thinking what we should do is create an image map with a small area (it could even just be a couple pixels) that links to the CC site and the rest can link to us.<br />
<br />
There is [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2007-February/001569.html a thread] that happened on the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/ CC-Community mailing list] that is worth reading over first. The thread also raised some interesting issues about about using the CC icons instead of the letters which I definitely think we should do. If someone can help with the the new buttons, I could probably sit down and hack out some sort of solution in terms of the image maps. [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 22:22, 8 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== MediaWiki ==<br />
<br />
You should get these put into MediaWiki, and when administrators start up their wiki, create a way for them to choose between the logos, as well as the license. [[User:59.167.75.42|59.167.75.42]] 04:21, 17 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Gallery ==<br />
<br />
Hi, does anyone have an idea why <nowiki><gallery perrow="3"></gallery></nowiki> doesn't work here? --'''[[User:Kjoonlee|Kjoon]]'''[[User talk:Kjoonlee|lee]] 20:50, 18 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Maybe it's due to version differences.. The English Wikipedia uses MediaWiki 1.11alpha (r22970) and "perrow" is supported there, but this site uses 1.9.0. --'''[[User:Kjoonlee|Kjoon]]'''[[User talk:Kjoonlee|lee]] 19:50, 22 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Equal treatement for "PD" please. ==<br />
<br />
Would it be too much trouble to ask for buttons with "PD" in the same size letters as the other buttons have (and perhaps "Public Domain" underneath there in small print for some variants, like there are for the others). No reason to not have such. The current ones with Public and Domain in same size on different rows looks very busy to me. -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro]] 12:26, 10 July 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
An svg version would also be nice ... we could develop our own variants/colors/sizes.<br />
Does this exist? or should I (or a real artist) try my hand at tracing in Inkscape again?<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 12:38, 10 July 2007 (CEST)</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Permissible_restrictions&diff=3315Talk:Permissible restrictions2007-07-09T11:57:41Z<p>Inkwina: /* Our Definition? */</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>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=3307Talk:Definition/Unstable2007-06-26T15:19:04Z<p>Inkwina: </p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. <br />
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: <br />
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]]. <br />
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:<br />
Users are free to<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:<br />
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; <br />
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share <br />
enhancements or derived works.<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:<br />
<br />
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.<br />
<br />
Users are free to:<br />
<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim] <br />
<br />
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]<br />
<br />
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.<br />
<br />
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).<br />
<br />
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Final name ==<br />
<br />
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Hu?<br />
: First, welcome back...<br />
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?<br />
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)<br />
<br />
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?<br />
<br />
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".<br />
<br />
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.<br />
<br />
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: It was important to us (Mako and myself, the co-initiators of the definition) to label the definition in a way which is agreeable to the important institutions of the Free Culture movement -- FSF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and so on. The discussion on the wiki was absolutely crucial to the entire process. All the names that have been listed here have been mentioned and repeatedly considered. Mako and I have spoken personally to Lessig, RMS, Moglen, and others about this. Now that, after many hours of talking, we have finally found something everyone seems to be able to agree to (more or less enthusiastically), you will have to understand that I am reluctant to second-guess the decision. Certainly, it is always nicer to have a larger scale community process to give a decision legitimacy, but I also believe that process is not an end in itself, and hope we can move foward together. I certainly appreciate (and am well aware of) all the work you have done on this wiki.<br />
<br />
:: Regarding your specific critique: the strength of "Free Cultural Works", in my opinion, is that it references the notion of "Free Culture" without explicitly being called a "Free Culture Definition". It also reduces the "work (labor)" vs. "work (intellectual)" ambiguity in the singular. For example, if I refer to a CD as a "Free Work", the response "So you've worked for free?" is almost inevitable. I do not agree that "Free Cultural" excludes software or scientific articles; in my opinion, both are very much and very clearly cultural works, and should be explicitly referenced.<br />
<br />
:: That the title of the definition itself is not quite catchy may not be such a bad thing -- we will not attempt to prescribe that you have to call free cultural works by that exact phrase. Instead, what I would like to do is to explicitly reference other phrases which have similar meanings, such as "free content" and "open knowledge".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: I understand you want to put Lessig, RMS and others on our side, but I think we shouldn't care. We have to do this work because FSF and CC refused to take position in the first place, so we are the ones setting a standard.<br />
<br />
::: Anyway, I'm ready to further contribute. But, sincerely, it will be difficult unless things stop being done in private. Regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:06, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: It would be fine if there had been offline discussion, provided that details were posted to the wiki here so that we could also see it, at the time or after the fact. Indeed, you have a wiki, so one might ask why the discussion was not carried out through the wiki, which would seem designed for the task?<br />
<br />
::: Also, like Antoine, I have a great deal of respect for Richard Stallman and for Lawrence Lessig, who through their writings have between them opened my eyes to freedom. Nevertheless, we should not fear to build on that, and hope to equal or exceed what has passed before. <br />
<br />
::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:48, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" border="1" width="80%"><br />
<tr><td><br />
"Definition of Free Cultural Works" suggests [http://creativecommons.org/ "Creative Commons"] and the associated [http://www.free-culture.cc/ "Free Culture" book]. While these are both brilliant, they suggest a range of licenses most of which are non-free. We need to focus on the free/<em>libre</em> licenses which conform to the definition we are developing. <br />
<br />
Prefer something like "Definition of Libre Works" or "Definition of Free/Libre Resources", etc. - or simply "Libre Definition" - Kim Tucker 30 October 2006.</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
:::: I concur with your comments, and I'm not terribly happy either with the term "Cultural" nor with the term "Works", for various reasons. Libre Definition or Libre Content Definition would be much more acceptable, and I often use the term "Software libre" in preference to "Free software" for similar reasons. So far Libre is not really an English word in itself, but perhaps we should adopt it and make it so anyway, since "Free" in current English has too many connotations of both "Libre" and "Gratis" which are avoided by use of a more precise term.<br />
<br />
:::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 00:55, 31 October 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: ''Libre'' doesn't work for me -- too strange and foreign, too easily to confuse with "Libri" (books). IMHO focusing the "Free Culture" movement on a clearer notion of freedom is a worthy goal in its own right.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:32, 2 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: That's a reasonable point, and is the same reason that "Free software" is the normal expression in English, rather than "Software libre" although that can of course be used as well - and much of our language derives from expressions which were originally "strange and foreign" but became familiar and commonplace because people started using them anyway.<br />
<br />
::::: For our purposes it's unfortunate, due to the confusion in English between "libre" and "gratis" according to context, where "libre" captures our intended meaning. So far the best expression I've seen is "Free Content Definition" as in the present unstable definition, as dropping the "and Expression" was a distinct improvement, and we can explain that we mean ''Free content'' in the sense of liberty not price. --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:09, 5 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::::: Libre disambiguates, while "free" is foreign and confusing to most people on the planet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre#Libre Wikipedia on Libre] indicates that the word "Libre" is used in various [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages Romance languages] while "gratis is common in Germanic and Romance languages. So, at least speakers of those languages would identify with these terms, and no-one would be confused about what is meant. <br />
In various circles, the term FLOSS is being used more and more - probably encouraged by high profile research projects such as [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSWorld] and [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSPols] among others and in articles in [http://www.firstmonday.org First Monday] where the acronym FLOSS is used more than FOSS (the L is significant).<br />
I think it is time (and would be useful) to make "libre" an accepted English word - like so many others from the Romance languages :-). [[User:ktucker|Kim]] 20070118<br />
<br />
== look forward to seeing updates, anyway ==<br />
<br />
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.<br />
<br />
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else ''generalised'', applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's ''Cultural'', and whether or not it's a ''Work'' however that is defined.<br />
<br />
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:<br />
<br />
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.<br />
<br />
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ philosophy] page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.<br />
<br />
:regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I also find the use of the term "god-like" unsavoury. This term might be offensive to parctitioners of certain faiths, particulary if or when the definition is translated to certain languages. I belive that such a definition would be most useful if it written in an as unequivocal a language as possible, while at the same time avoiding a legalistic style. Not that this is an easy task, but avoiding emotionally charged language would help.<br />
<br />
btw, it is the laws, not the countries that create the situation, this is not clear in the current.<br />
"thier content" is metaphoric and emotional, and I'm not clear why its re-use, not plain use.<br />
<br />
I would rewrite this sentence as follows: <br />
<cite> They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. </cite> to<br />
'''Such laws provide authors with extraordianry rights, effectivly granting them an exlusive monopoly as to how the content they create can be used.'''<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:33, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
:[[Talk:Definition#.22god-like_creators.22.3F|Additional thoughts.]] Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 23:57, 10 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Added "freedom to use" to the preamble ==<br />
<br />
As it was the preamble was not consistent with subsequent sections; please amend and re-edit as may be necessary.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:42, 26 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== (re)distribute v. communicate ==<br />
<br />
When we talk about information distribution esseantially equals communication. After all, the network, and the community, consists of people, and the information that is shared by the community isn't "distributed" it is "communicated".<br />
<br />
I thus argue that<br />
<br />
# the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
# the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works <br />
<br />
should be changed to something along the lines of <br />
<br />
# the freedom to communicate the information or expression to anyone, without restriction<br />
# the freedom to communicate mutated versions of the information or expression<br />
<br />
== Definition and / or manifesto? ==<br />
<br />
The current preamble asserts that (all) cultural works should be free. Is this really to be part of the definition? My guess is that many people are interested in a definition, without necessarily being in support of this claim. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 17:48, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Saying that works of authorship should be free seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement to me. The definition does not advocate abolishing copyright law to ''achieve'' that goal, nor does it set any kind of timetable -- in fact, it doesn't even assert that this goal is achievable for all works of authorship. It merely expresses a clear moral preference of free over non-free works. This moral preference is, indeed, something which I think we should communicate, as the definition is not meant to be merely a sterile legal text, but part of a social movement which agrees with this very basic notion -- but may favor different methods to achieve it, or even disagree upon its ultimate feasibility.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:49, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: It is not my intention to question that the preference of free works should be stated on the site. Still, it is hardly part the definition of a free work. Therefore, I would suggest another page for the moral and philosophy, separated from the definition. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 15:29, 1 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this definition refers, and implicitly applies exclusively to, Digital renditions. I do not know if this is intentional, but it is defiantly not a bad thing. I believe that for a work to be really free it needs to be replicatable (i.e. it should be possible to make a perfect copy, not that it is possible to come up with it again from scratch). This is only practically possible (easy) with text (hence the power of writing) and today with digital media. If there is agreement with this vein of thought I think that it should be made more explicit in the definition. <br />
<br />
This would nicely lead to the statement that the freedoms required by the definition cannot be technically impaired or limited (e.g. through the use of propriety digital formats) <br />
e.g. an audio clip can be released under CC-BY-SA as an .ogg and as a .wma, but only the .ogg version should be considered free under this definition.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 12:35, 9 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:Actually, the definition tries to take physical (non-digital) works into account. A license like the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] was explicitly drafted with physical works in mind as well. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:38, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: <cite> ...make it possible for a growing part of humanity to access, create, modify, publish and distribute cultural works that can be represented in digital form ...</cite> This sentence gives the opposite impression. It's really a matter of clarity.<br />
::Also can this definition apply to an original oil painting on canvas? how can "The freedom to redistribute copies" be reconciled with "No technical restrictions" when the only way to make a copy of an oil painting is to employ a copy artist with great technical skill to make a copy; what is somtimes called a "fake". -[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 03:49, 21 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, the quote above is part of the preamble, it explains the technical context that makes free content more and more relevant. But the definition itself is not specific to digital works.<br />
:::As for making copies of a painting, I don't see having skills as a "technical restriction". For making a copy of a digital image, you also need technical skills (copying a file on a computer is a skill, even if a basic one). In the spirit of this definition, a restriction is a burden that is deliberately added by the author/producer/distributor, not a requirement inherent to the kind of work. If I want to modify a piece of software and recompile it, I'd better know how to code: is it a "technical restriction" too?<br />
:::By the way, while you need some very good skills to make a near-perfect copy, you can also make a very approximate copy which would still qualify as a breach of "intellectual property" if the original painting was not under a free license.<br />
:::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:21, 21 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I think the definition can be reconciled by requiring any work which can be modified non-destructively to allow modification -- but any work which cannot be should have no restrictions on derivatives which do not destroy the original work. ("No technical restrictions" may even include not being displayed in a venue which does not allow photography -- which is a huge technical restriction right now on creating derivatives of works which should have fallen into the public domain.) [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:13, 28 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Good point Kat. But the real problem is not with deriviative works but with copies. It is the Freedom to redistribute copies that creates a problem. Contrast the digital domain, where a copy of a pice of code has the same value (not neccecarly monatary) as the original, with the art domain where a copy always has a different value (not nessecarly minor) by virtue of being a copy. Then again contrast that with music, where a score can be copied, but the music itself is only ever interpreted never copied, even if the same piece is performed twice in a row by the same person. Again the technical skill to copy/compile code can be easly acquired, and is widely available and distributied, espessially when compared to the ability to make 'indistinguishable' copies of artwork, which is a rare abilty at best, impossible at worst. A rough copy, might infringe copyright, but it is a deriviative work. I apologize for being the devil's advocate, but I belive that if this definition is to be used outside of the domain of digital works it need to be written in a way that makes sense to people who might have a very different idea of what "to copy a creative work" means, different from that of geeks and probabbly different from one another's. I, more or less, understand what is meant and the inherent limitations because I'm familiar with FLOSS and wikipedia, but if I were to read this text the the Music Professor who I occasionally have to help use the photocopier, 'cause he can't even set it to A3, his interpretaion will be that this was written by a bunch of rebles tring to lay their hands on his royalties :-) --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:18, 23 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== The role of the source file requirement? ==<br />
<br />
I agree that something like the source file requirement needs to be included. I think it aims at several related ideals:<br />
<br />
# Providing a modifiable format (e.g. a text file rather than a PDF)<br />
# Providing a format informative to humans (e.g. a musical score rather than an Ogg Vorbis recording)<br />
# Providing necessary information that is only summarized or analyzed in the distributed work at all (e.g. providing the actual coded dataset for a paper reporting the results of a regression analysis)<br />
<br />
I'm not sure that the "source file" concept quite addresses these issues. As applied to software, source code gets at (1) very well, (2) pretty well, and (3) doesn't usually arise. I wonder whether there is some more helpful term the definition could use, or perhaps whether the item itself should be split into more than one.<br />
<br />
== "their content" ==<br />
<br />
Why the sneering tone towards authorship? 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 />
== "purpose" ==<br />
<br />
Speaking as a translator, I find the very first sentence ambiguous: "''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.''"<br />
<br />
Is "purpose" here ''purpose'' as in motivation; or ''purpose'' as in manner of using? "For fun" is a purpose, but so is "as a doorstop". Perhaps some grammatician can say that one of those is semantically not a valid understanding of "purpose" or that they are in a larger sense equivalent, but I am worried about the casual reader, and will note that some languages (definitely not Finnish) may not find a direct equivalent for such a flexible word. -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro]] 15:55, 25 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:It's purpose as in reason (or "manner of using" as you said it). [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 16:49, 25 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I tend to disagree. My interpretation leaned towards ''intention'' rather then ''action'' but both aspects, should be covered. that is why the word purpose is useful, albeit a headache for translators, who have to see how to encapsulate both meanings. By negation, a book with a licence that forbids you from using a printed version of it a fodder for a fire cannot be said to be free. A book with a licence which disallows you from using it in an language class as an example of bad grammar is also not free. maybe: "...copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose." should become: "...copied and/or modified, by any person (both legal and natural), for any purpose, in manner and intention." but that sounds too legalistic, doesn't it?<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 17:19, 26 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== "essential" ==<br />
<br />
Another incredibly irritating phrase; "Essential Freedom". Puh-lease, say what you really mean. "Essential" as in it is essential that I find the lost pair to my sock? Essential in the sense of inalienable, never to be breached for what reason whatsoever. I am pretty sure neither is what is meant here. Is it intended to be deliberately ambiguous? Can't a more tightly construeable word be found? -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro]] 16:25, 25 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:They are essential. Without them, the content can not be called free content, which means they're essential to this definition. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 16:49, 25 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Hmmm... the words ''fundamental'' and ''necessary'' come to mind as better alternatives. Possibly there freedoms might be better called "Required Basic Freedoms for Works to Comply to the Definition".<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 17:19, 26 June 2007 (CEST)</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Permissible_restrictions&diff=3260Talk:Permissible restrictions2007-06-19T11:18:31Z<p>Inkwina: Our Definition?</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)</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=3194Talk:Definition2007-05-14T16:32:55Z<p>Inkwina: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Typos ==<br />
<br />
Under "Permissible Restrictions": "... for the protection of protection of ...". This typo should not exist in a stable version. --[[User:Mrnorwood|Mrnorwood]] 18:48, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
: Thanks,fixed.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:21, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== What about the applicable law? ==<br />
<br />
If a license has a clause about the applicable law, is the license free?<br />
In my opinion, this clause is a problem because only the people that know a certain law can understand license's implied sides.<br />
<br />
: I think CC are working on licenses covered by Berne/WIPO law only. But a license needs a jurisdiction to avoid confusion or argument over terms and meaning, so in this case having a jurisdiction may protect freedom. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 20:06, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== First Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
I had some issues with the definition of free content here. Firstly, the document attempts to define "free content" as so many have done in the past, yet there is no clear definition of what is and isn't free content in the "free content movement" you discuss. It concerns me that a definition is being created in isolation from the wider community without proper discussion.<br />
<br />
I see the definition here models itself on the free software definition, but misses several important and fundamental aspects:<br />
<br />
How does the definition handle digital works (such as images, documents, etc) versus non-digitual works (such as hard-copy books, paintings, sculptures, etc)?<br />
<br />
How should digital works be treated? A digital work, such as a wordprocessor document, can be viewed in two ways: firstly, as a work in and of itself, i.e. content, but also as a piece of software itself that can display a final work. Should you only have the freedom to study a work (content), or should you also have the freedom to study how a work was created (software)?<br />
<br />
The definition talks about the freedom to make and release (distribute?) modifications but it doesn't say anything about source copies of work. I can think of several examples where the freedom to make modifications can be provided, but without a source copy of a work (i.e. in the format preferred for making modifications) making modifications could be prohibitive:<br />
<br />
* Protected PDF - sure, decrypting such a PDF is possible but its a) tricky to export a PDF to a format that can be modified with all the information intact (images, tables, etc), and b) it may be illegal to decrypt protected PDFs in certain juristictions (DMCA?)<br />
* Text content as image files - a user could allow users the freedom to modify his written works but only distribute them in image format. It is difficult for downstream users to then extract the text content<br />
<br />
You also talk about "free content licenses" where you should really be talking about free content works: a license enables a free content work, but<br />
<br />
Free experession is not the same as free content: you can have the right to free expresssion without having free content, and free content does not guarantee free expression.<br />
<br />
I hope this is helpful. --[[User:Rgladwell|Rgladwell]] 20:25, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for your comments. If you don't mind, I will move them to [[Talk:Definition/Unstable]] and respond there, just to have all comments in one place. First thoughts: You raise a very good point. Is it possible for something to be free content without the "source code" (or something equivalent) being available? Under the current definition, it is. Perhaps we need to find a wording that requires source availabiliy where such sources are essential to modifying the work. More later,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:42, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I've dispatched some of the comments into their own sections in Definition/Unstable. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:16, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Is there somewhere I can sign? -rhY-<br />
<br />
::In terms of source requirements, should it be more along the lines of source must be supplied where it existed in the making of the derivative and in the case of simple copies, if source was available for the original?<br />
<br />
Wow ... you even frame/structure Talk?! ... meh. Anyhow, ''nota'': you have Definition as your default index (wrong ... on basic principle, wrong ... you program? think trampolene) but Definition links to the rest of the site very very poorly. --BenTrem [[User:68.148.26.220|68.148.26.220]] 01:07, 25 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== versioning ==<br />
License 333 and version 0.66 -- it is a sign! Excellent.<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Open Knowledge Definition ==<br />
<br />
Last september/october the [http://www.okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation] 'ported' the Open Source Definiton to produce the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition] ([http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html full text]).<br />
<br />
This came out of various discussions with people working on open geodata, open access, and open databases of scientific data. As I wrote then:<br />
<br />
"The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) provides an answer to the question: what is open knowledge? It puts forward, in a simple and clear manner, principles that define open knowledge and which open knowledge licenses must satisfy.<br />
<br />
The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access' journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential blurring of what is open and what is not.<br />
<br />
In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition, by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in achieving these ends."<br />
<br />
I therefore think this new initiative is a big step forward at a time, when at least to judge from my experience of debates about the CC license at Free Culture UK, there is no clear consensus about terms such as 'Free Content' (and therefore no consensus about the norms of the community).<br />
<br />
Given the common interest in these issues I'd very much like to get further involved in the FCED -- and parhaps also look at a way to merge the OKD and the FCED.<br />
<br />
--RufusPollock<br />
<br />
<br />
== My take ==<br />
<br />
:''"Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other works do not benefit from artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely."''<br />
<br />
I think this needs some revising. Production and quality do not benefit from artificial scarcity- individual works may very much so benefit. The last sentence needs some amending- Free content is not just used Freely, but ''more''. An important distinction to my mind.<br />
<br />
:#''the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression''<br />
:#''the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies ''<br />
<br />
This freedom isn't very clear. Does this involve not charging, or are "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fees acceptable?<br />
<br />
::My take on this question: those fees are not acceptable as normally understood. But it does not involve not charging either. For instance, in Free Software, you can charge whatever you can manage when someone obtains a copy from you. That you cannot do is make them pay you a fee when they then make copies of that copy for themselves.<br />
<br />
:''"Any original work of authorship is copyrighted. Under copyright law, authors are considered God-like "creators" and are given legal powers they can use against those who duplicate "their" content in altered or unaltered form."''<br />
<br />
Personally, I'd like a bit of a mention of the artificiality of copyright. That first line certainly makes it sound like copyright is a God-given natural right. <br />
<br />
More generally, the attribution section strikes me as troublesome. What happens if I take an article, on Fujiwara no Teika, say, which is a stub, and work like the dickens on it, until it is orders of magnitude larger, such that there is not so much as a single word in common with the original article? Should the first person still be credited as the original author? --maru ([[User:129.21.121.235|129.21.121.235]] 06:47, 6 May 2006 (CEST))<br />
<br />
== Adelphi ==<br />
<br />
Please also consult the [http://www.adelphicharter.org/ Adelphi charter].<br />
<br />
And regarding Public domain there is also the concept of "gemeinfrei"/common free in droit' auteur regulation. <br />
i.e. public property vs. free to use<br />
<br />
==The freedom to use and perform the work==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see the word "display" added to this since perform covers music and plays while display would cover films and pictures.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:46, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Since we speak of ''any use, private or public'', and all related rights, this is covered, but I agree that we can & should explicitly enumerate it in the next version.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Discussion list ==<br />
<br />
Is it possible to host the discussion list elsewhere than Google Groups? Not everyone wants to centralize their activity in a Google account. Not to mention that plain-jane Mailman archives are so much more usable than Google's system. Thanks. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:44, 16 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:I can host a mailman list for this on Wikia if there's no objection to that. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 14:18, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks for the offer - but I'd prefer to host the list with Mako. He's already offered to set up a list for us. As a private company in the wiki space which, I hope, will one day adopt the definition, I don't want Wikia to be seen as in any way influencing its content (same reason I wouldn't host the list with Wikimedia).--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks, anything resembling a normal mailing-list with public archives will be ok. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:31, 18 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Metaphor suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to thank the developers of this definition for clearly distinguishing between works that are truly free, and those that are only semi-free. One thing the concept lacks, though, is a simple metaphor as in "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech", that can be used to illustrate the basic distinction of this paradigm in a non-technical way. Not sure if such a thing belongs in an official definition, but I think it's something we should have around. I think I might have come up with something helpful, which is explained in the passage below:<br />
<br />
''Many licenses are called "free", but they are free in different ways. One has to ask, is a work "free to pamphlet" or "free to marionette"? A "free to pamphlet" work may be free to hand out copies (while rewriting or sale is restricted), but a "free to marionette" work is free to adapt into a marionette show, and to sell tickets at the door to rent the theatre and feed the hungry puppetteers.''--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 00:03, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: I think that is a nice metaphor for an essay. I would encourage you to draft an essay here -- I hope that, like the GNU site, freedomdefined.org will eventually be a solid collection of philosophical material.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:13, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I've written something at [[Free to marionette]]. Not sure where it goes in the structure, though.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 09:29, 24 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I've collected that and some other material I found here at [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]. There didn't seem to be any established place for such material till now, so I just went ahead and created one.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 08:01, 10 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Source data ==<br />
<br />
I think the source data section will still need some work to deal with cases where such data is simply not obtainable; IMHO that should not make the work non-free.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:11, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think this is a very tricky part. The source vs. binary duality is very different in the case of a creative work. If I took a photo of a flower would the source data be the flower itself, the raw format of the photo, or would the jpg be enough? If I released a png after adjusting the white balance, would I still have to release the raw format for a work to be free and be excused only if I happen to 'accidentally' destroy the raw data? I think that as long as a work is editable the source data is irrelevant. In the case of software, not releasing source places a technical impediment to modifying the work. In the case of a 3D scene this might also be the case, but in the case of an image it is clearly not. In the case of an audio file, or a film, would the author have to release the off cuts? I would not think so. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 16:07, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think is this fine to distinguish between works where there are no "source data" and where there is. A not yet fleshed-out thought is that anything that can be modified non-destructively should be available for distribution in the preferred form for modification. [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:28, 27 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Copyleft suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to see a [[discussion of copyleft]] and what it needs to have to promote / protect a pool of Free Works.<br />
<br />
==Moral rights==<br />
<br />
There are some moral rights (''droit d'auteur'' not ''copyright'') that I have as an author and due to legal restriction I can't waive them. Does this make my work unfree? This page or [[Permissible restrictions]] does not address this issue.<br />
<br />
PS. You may call me old fashioned, but I don't think sentences like these give a mature and intelligent impression: "They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how 'their content' can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies." [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Samulili Samulili from Wikimedia projects]<br />
:I agree, the hostility is unnecessary and immature. [[User:130.58.68.159|130.58.68.159]] 22:47, 1 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:In my opinion, moral rights do not make your own work un-free, because they don't forbid other people to e.g. make modifications, they allow you to oppose some modifications on a case by case basis. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:21, 6 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Commercial Restrictions==<br />
<br />
What about some restrictions on the commercial distribution of a work? That is, a free culture work can be copied and those copies can be shared but with some restrictions on selling those copies when permission is not granted.<br />
<br />
:That isn't free content. Commercial Restrictions are explicitly not [[permissible restrictions]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 18:20, 3 April 2007 (CEST)<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)</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:FAQ&diff=3193Talk:FAQ2007-05-14T16:30:56Z<p>Inkwina: /* What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? */</p>
<hr />
<div>re: What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos?<br />
<br />
<br />
To my mind, the "main" or "proper" use of a trademark is to enable to "customer" to know who he is dealing with. Allowing a free for all use of trademarks and logos would negate these benefits to the customers" (I will try and word this better later.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have pondered recently the possibility of dual trademarks, one freely usable and one protected. Text versus graphic or logo based. So if you forked project foo, you could still call yours foo, but you would need to develop a new logo or graphical trademark.<br />
<br />
Does anyone see any merit to this idea at all?<br />
--[[User:Zotz|Zotz]] 01:23, 10 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I have added a few paragraphs in the FAQ itself. I hope nobody minds. Also, I apologize for the likely English mistakes in those additions!<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 04:23, 10 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== How Will People Make Money? ==<br />
<br />
There are two logical errors in the argument that Freedom prevents people making their fortunes like they all do under proprietary culture. :-)<br />
<br />
The first is that very few people make any money under proprietary culture. Even relatively well-known artists and musicians will not make a living off reproduction rights or sales of their work.<br />
<br />
The second is that Freedom is more important than maximising profit for middlemen.<br />
<br />
It is good to tackle the question of making money, but it is not good to concede the grounds of the debate to the middlemen whose usurous control of "content" is challenged by Freedom.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:55, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Some ways to make money: via knowledge services such as being paid to do translations, localisations, remixes, and other derived works, distribution (e.g. on alternative media to people without Internet access), packaging and selling collections of free resources and offering professional services (e.g. training and support) - all the resources and enhancements remain free/libre. [Kim Tucker 30 Oct 2006].<br />
<br />
== What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? ==<br />
<br />
For the same reason the FSF think it's acceptible to have invariant sections in documentation: they think it serves their agenda, which is freedom within a particular domain. Software, not trademarks. <br />
<br />
And they may have a point. Identity and reputation may be important, and may trump certain other freedoms. Trademarks should be covered by extensive Fair Use, which may require legal reform rather than licenses. There should also be a Free trademark license, just one copyleft one or perhaps a BSD-style one as well. But no NonCommercial or NoDerivs ones. <br />
<br />
--[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 20:04, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I too have commented on this above: trademark, used properly, should be for the protection of the "buyer" in the market. So that a person can know who they are dealing with. Please comment on the two trademark idea, one free which rides with the project, on not-free which rides with the developer group.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Zotz|Zotz]] 15:29, 05 Mar 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
What about Logos? While it is true that Logos can, and ideally should, be free, the issue of identity need to be given serious thought. In this case I would envisage a Licence which AFAIK is very absent from the choice of pre-fab licences currently available. This would remove the freedom to use, but would allow the freedom to copy and modify. This might sound like a contradiction at first, but makes sense for the specific case of logos. Essentially it would allow you to use the logo in all the ways that a free Licence would, except as a logo identifying an activity other than that for which it was designed. If say, the CC logos where licensed in such a manner it would make the logo I designed [[Media:CC-BY-SA.svg]] acceptable (BTW, should those be removed from this site, or do they constitute fair use by way of a bad example). Whether such a theoretical Licence would be "free" is a matter for discussion. But, until using a free logo of a free project to pass off another project with different aims as one and the same becomes illegal under a "Digital Identity Theft Act (2097)" some form of protection will be needed. As unfortunate as it might sound Sometimes freedom is best served by restricting it (e.g. prison. Lets hope such measures are only temporary, even if long term.<br />
<br />
This is not to say that the definitions logo should not be PD. The message sent by this choice is strong, and is wroth the risk of some confusion, when (rather then if) someone tries to use it for some pass of another project which is detrimental to our aims as this very project. BUT, I do think it would be counter-productive if this definition implied that ALL publicly visible content ought to be free, no matter what ones personal beliefs on the matter are. The freedom to do the "wrong" thing is an important freedom too (of course with the associated consequences)<br />
<br />
(see also [[Talk:Definition#.22god-like_creators.22.3F]])<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 18:30, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too. ==<br />
<br />
See the [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition]. But spectrum is different from grains (seed rights, which could do with a license) and genetics (which is basically data) as it is a limited resource.<br />
<br />
== Moral rights ==<br />
<br />
The issue of moral rights has come up several times on Wikimedia Commons. Can somebody please add an FAQ entry to discuss whether and how much moral rights restrict freedom and what the effect on the ‘free’/‘not free’ status of a work is? —[[:commons:User:xyzzy_n|xyzzy]]<sub>[[:commons:User talk:xyzzy_n|n]]</sub> from Commons 09:04, 19 April 2007 (CEST)</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=3192Talk:Definition2007-05-14T16:20:00Z<p>Inkwina: /* "god-like creators"? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Typos ==<br />
<br />
Under "Permissible Restrictions": "... for the protection of protection of ...". This typo should not exist in a stable version. --[[User:Mrnorwood|Mrnorwood]] 18:48, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
: Thanks,fixed.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:21, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== What about the applicable law? ==<br />
<br />
If a license has a clause about the applicable law, is the license free?<br />
In my opinion, this clause is a problem because only the people that know a certain law can understand license's implied sides.<br />
<br />
: I think CC are working on licenses covered by Berne/WIPO law only. But a license needs a jurisdiction to avoid confusion or argument over terms and meaning, so in this case having a jurisdiction may protect freedom. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 20:06, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== First Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
I had some issues with the definition of free content here. Firstly, the document attempts to define "free content" as so many have done in the past, yet there is no clear definition of what is and isn't free content in the "free content movement" you discuss. It concerns me that a definition is being created in isolation from the wider community without proper discussion.<br />
<br />
I see the definition here models itself on the free software definition, but misses several important and fundamental aspects:<br />
<br />
How does the definition handle digital works (such as images, documents, etc) versus non-digitual works (such as hard-copy books, paintings, sculptures, etc)?<br />
<br />
How should digital works be treated? A digital work, such as a wordprocessor document, can be viewed in two ways: firstly, as a work in and of itself, i.e. content, but also as a piece of software itself that can display a final work. Should you only have the freedom to study a work (content), or should you also have the freedom to study how a work was created (software)?<br />
<br />
The definition talks about the freedom to make and release (distribute?) modifications but it doesn't say anything about source copies of work. I can think of several examples where the freedom to make modifications can be provided, but without a source copy of a work (i.e. in the format preferred for making modifications) making modifications could be prohibitive:<br />
<br />
* Protected PDF - sure, decrypting such a PDF is possible but its a) tricky to export a PDF to a format that can be modified with all the information intact (images, tables, etc), and b) it may be illegal to decrypt protected PDFs in certain juristictions (DMCA?)<br />
* Text content as image files - a user could allow users the freedom to modify his written works but only distribute them in image format. It is difficult for downstream users to then extract the text content<br />
<br />
You also talk about "free content licenses" where you should really be talking about free content works: a license enables a free content work, but<br />
<br />
Free experession is not the same as free content: you can have the right to free expresssion without having free content, and free content does not guarantee free expression.<br />
<br />
I hope this is helpful. --[[User:Rgladwell|Rgladwell]] 20:25, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for your comments. If you don't mind, I will move them to [[Talk:Definition/Unstable]] and respond there, just to have all comments in one place. First thoughts: You raise a very good point. Is it possible for something to be free content without the "source code" (or something equivalent) being available? Under the current definition, it is. Perhaps we need to find a wording that requires source availabiliy where such sources are essential to modifying the work. More later,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:42, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I've dispatched some of the comments into their own sections in Definition/Unstable. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:16, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Is there somewhere I can sign? -rhY-<br />
<br />
::In terms of source requirements, should it be more along the lines of source must be supplied where it existed in the making of the derivative and in the case of simple copies, if source was available for the original?<br />
<br />
Wow ... you even frame/structure Talk?! ... meh. Anyhow, ''nota'': you have Definition as your default index (wrong ... on basic principle, wrong ... you program? think trampolene) but Definition links to the rest of the site very very poorly. --BenTrem [[User:68.148.26.220|68.148.26.220]] 01:07, 25 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== versioning ==<br />
License 333 and version 0.66 -- it is a sign! Excellent.<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Open Knowledge Definition ==<br />
<br />
Last september/october the [http://www.okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation] 'ported' the Open Source Definiton to produce the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition] ([http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html full text]).<br />
<br />
This came out of various discussions with people working on open geodata, open access, and open databases of scientific data. As I wrote then:<br />
<br />
"The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) provides an answer to the question: what is open knowledge? It puts forward, in a simple and clear manner, principles that define open knowledge and which open knowledge licenses must satisfy.<br />
<br />
The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access' journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential blurring of what is open and what is not.<br />
<br />
In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition, by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in achieving these ends."<br />
<br />
I therefore think this new initiative is a big step forward at a time, when at least to judge from my experience of debates about the CC license at Free Culture UK, there is no clear consensus about terms such as 'Free Content' (and therefore no consensus about the norms of the community).<br />
<br />
Given the common interest in these issues I'd very much like to get further involved in the FCED -- and parhaps also look at a way to merge the OKD and the FCED.<br />
<br />
--RufusPollock<br />
<br />
<br />
== My take ==<br />
<br />
:''"Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other works do not benefit from artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely."''<br />
<br />
I think this needs some revising. Production and quality do not benefit from artificial scarcity- individual works may very much so benefit. The last sentence needs some amending- Free content is not just used Freely, but ''more''. An important distinction to my mind.<br />
<br />
:#''the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression''<br />
:#''the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies ''<br />
<br />
This freedom isn't very clear. Does this involve not charging, or are "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fees acceptable?<br />
<br />
::My take on this question: those fees are not acceptable as normally understood. But it does not involve not charging either. For instance, in Free Software, you can charge whatever you can manage when someone obtains a copy from you. That you cannot do is make them pay you a fee when they then make copies of that copy for themselves.<br />
<br />
:''"Any original work of authorship is copyrighted. Under copyright law, authors are considered God-like "creators" and are given legal powers they can use against those who duplicate "their" content in altered or unaltered form."''<br />
<br />
Personally, I'd like a bit of a mention of the artificiality of copyright. That first line certainly makes it sound like copyright is a God-given natural right. <br />
<br />
More generally, the attribution section strikes me as troublesome. What happens if I take an article, on Fujiwara no Teika, say, which is a stub, and work like the dickens on it, until it is orders of magnitude larger, such that there is not so much as a single word in common with the original article? Should the first person still be credited as the original author? --maru ([[User:129.21.121.235|129.21.121.235]] 06:47, 6 May 2006 (CEST))<br />
<br />
== Adelphi ==<br />
<br />
Please also consult the [http://www.adelphicharter.org/ Adelphi charter].<br />
<br />
And regarding Public domain there is also the concept of "gemeinfrei"/common free in droit' auteur regulation. <br />
i.e. public property vs. free to use<br />
<br />
==The freedom to use and perform the work==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see the word "display" added to this since perform covers music and plays while display would cover films and pictures.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:46, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Since we speak of ''any use, private or public'', and all related rights, this is covered, but I agree that we can & should explicitly enumerate it in the next version.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Discussion list ==<br />
<br />
Is it possible to host the discussion list elsewhere than Google Groups? Not everyone wants to centralize their activity in a Google account. Not to mention that plain-jane Mailman archives are so much more usable than Google's system. Thanks. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:44, 16 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:I can host a mailman list for this on Wikia if there's no objection to that. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 14:18, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks for the offer - but I'd prefer to host the list with Mako. He's already offered to set up a list for us. As a private company in the wiki space which, I hope, will one day adopt the definition, I don't want Wikia to be seen as in any way influencing its content (same reason I wouldn't host the list with Wikimedia).--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks, anything resembling a normal mailing-list with public archives will be ok. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:31, 18 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Metaphor suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to thank the developers of this definition for clearly distinguishing between works that are truly free, and those that are only semi-free. One thing the concept lacks, though, is a simple metaphor as in "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech", that can be used to illustrate the basic distinction of this paradigm in a non-technical way. Not sure if such a thing belongs in an official definition, but I think it's something we should have around. I think I might have come up with something helpful, which is explained in the passage below:<br />
<br />
''Many licenses are called "free", but they are free in different ways. One has to ask, is a work "free to pamphlet" or "free to marionette"? A "free to pamphlet" work may be free to hand out copies (while rewriting or sale is restricted), but a "free to marionette" work is free to adapt into a marionette show, and to sell tickets at the door to rent the theatre and feed the hungry puppetteers.''--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 00:03, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: I think that is a nice metaphor for an essay. I would encourage you to draft an essay here -- I hope that, like the GNU site, freedomdefined.org will eventually be a solid collection of philosophical material.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:13, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I've written something at [[Free to marionette]]. Not sure where it goes in the structure, though.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 09:29, 24 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I've collected that and some other material I found here at [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]. There didn't seem to be any established place for such material till now, so I just went ahead and created one.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 08:01, 10 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Source data ==<br />
<br />
I think the source data section will still need some work to deal with cases where such data is simply not obtainable; IMHO that should not make the work non-free.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:11, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think this is a very tricky part. The source vs. binary duality is very different in the case of a creative work. If I took a photo of a flower would the source data be the flower itself, the raw format of the photo, or would the jpg be enough? If I released a png after adjusting the white balance, would I still have to release the raw format for a work to be free and be excused only if I happen to 'accidentally' destroy the raw data? I think that as long as a work is editable the source data is irrelevant. In the case of software, not releasing source places a technical impediment to modifying the work. In the case of a 3D scene this might also be the case, but in the case of an image it is clearly not. In the case of an audio file, or a film, would the author have to release the off cuts? I would not think so. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 16:07, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think is this fine to distinguish between works where there are no "source data" and where there is. A not yet fleshed-out thought is that anything that can be modified non-destructively should be available for distribution in the preferred form for modification. [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:28, 27 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Copyleft suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to see a [[discussion of copyleft]] and what it needs to have to promote / protect a pool of Free Works.<br />
<br />
==Moral rights==<br />
<br />
There are some moral rights (''droit d'auteur'' not ''copyright'') that I have as an author and due to legal restriction I can't waive them. Does this make my work unfree? This page or [[Permissible restrictions]] does not address this issue.<br />
<br />
PS. You may call me old fashioned, but I don't think sentences like these give a mature and intelligent impression: "They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how 'their content' can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies." [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Samulili Samulili from Wikimedia projects]<br />
:I agree, the hostility is unnecessary and immature. [[User:130.58.68.159|130.58.68.159]] 22:47, 1 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:In my opinion, moral rights do not make your own work un-free, because they don't forbid other people to e.g. make modifications, they allow you to oppose some modifications on a case by case basis. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:21, 6 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Commercial Restrictions==<br />
<br />
What about some restrictions on the commercial distribution of a work? That is, a free culture work can be copied and those copies can be shared but with some restrictions on selling those copies when permission is not granted.<br />
<br />
:That isn't free content. Commercial Restrictions are explicitly not [[permissible restrictions]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 18:20, 3 April 2007 (CEST)<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 --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 18:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=3190Talk:Definition2007-05-13T13:27:57Z<p>Inkwina: /* "god-like creators" redux */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Typos ==<br />
<br />
Under "Permissible Restrictions": "... for the protection of protection of ...". This typo should not exist in a stable version. --[[User:Mrnorwood|Mrnorwood]] 18:48, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
: Thanks,fixed.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:21, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== What about the applicable law? ==<br />
<br />
If a license has a clause about the applicable law, is the license free?<br />
In my opinion, this clause is a problem because only the people that know a certain law can understand license's implied sides.<br />
<br />
: I think CC are working on licenses covered by Berne/WIPO law only. But a license needs a jurisdiction to avoid confusion or argument over terms and meaning, so in this case having a jurisdiction may protect freedom. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 20:06, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== First Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
I had some issues with the definition of free content here. Firstly, the document attempts to define "free content" as so many have done in the past, yet there is no clear definition of what is and isn't free content in the "free content movement" you discuss. It concerns me that a definition is being created in isolation from the wider community without proper discussion.<br />
<br />
I see the definition here models itself on the free software definition, but misses several important and fundamental aspects:<br />
<br />
How does the definition handle digital works (such as images, documents, etc) versus non-digitual works (such as hard-copy books, paintings, sculptures, etc)?<br />
<br />
How should digital works be treated? A digital work, such as a wordprocessor document, can be viewed in two ways: firstly, as a work in and of itself, i.e. content, but also as a piece of software itself that can display a final work. Should you only have the freedom to study a work (content), or should you also have the freedom to study how a work was created (software)?<br />
<br />
The definition talks about the freedom to make and release (distribute?) modifications but it doesn't say anything about source copies of work. I can think of several examples where the freedom to make modifications can be provided, but without a source copy of a work (i.e. in the format preferred for making modifications) making modifications could be prohibitive:<br />
<br />
* Protected PDF - sure, decrypting such a PDF is possible but its a) tricky to export a PDF to a format that can be modified with all the information intact (images, tables, etc), and b) it may be illegal to decrypt protected PDFs in certain juristictions (DMCA?)<br />
* Text content as image files - a user could allow users the freedom to modify his written works but only distribute them in image format. It is difficult for downstream users to then extract the text content<br />
<br />
You also talk about "free content licenses" where you should really be talking about free content works: a license enables a free content work, but<br />
<br />
Free experession is not the same as free content: you can have the right to free expresssion without having free content, and free content does not guarantee free expression.<br />
<br />
I hope this is helpful. --[[User:Rgladwell|Rgladwell]] 20:25, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for your comments. If you don't mind, I will move them to [[Talk:Definition/Unstable]] and respond there, just to have all comments in one place. First thoughts: You raise a very good point. Is it possible for something to be free content without the "source code" (or something equivalent) being available? Under the current definition, it is. Perhaps we need to find a wording that requires source availabiliy where such sources are essential to modifying the work. More later,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:42, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I've dispatched some of the comments into their own sections in Definition/Unstable. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:16, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Is there somewhere I can sign? -rhY-<br />
<br />
::In terms of source requirements, should it be more along the lines of source must be supplied where it existed in the making of the derivative and in the case of simple copies, if source was available for the original?<br />
<br />
Wow ... you even frame/structure Talk?! ... meh. Anyhow, ''nota'': you have Definition as your default index (wrong ... on basic principle, wrong ... you program? think trampolene) but Definition links to the rest of the site very very poorly. --BenTrem [[User:68.148.26.220|68.148.26.220]] 01:07, 25 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== versioning ==<br />
License 333 and version 0.66 -- it is a sign! Excellent.<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Open Knowledge Definition ==<br />
<br />
Last september/october the [http://www.okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation] 'ported' the Open Source Definiton to produce the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition] ([http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html full text]).<br />
<br />
This came out of various discussions with people working on open geodata, open access, and open databases of scientific data. As I wrote then:<br />
<br />
"The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) provides an answer to the question: what is open knowledge? It puts forward, in a simple and clear manner, principles that define open knowledge and which open knowledge licenses must satisfy.<br />
<br />
The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access' journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential blurring of what is open and what is not.<br />
<br />
In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition, by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in achieving these ends."<br />
<br />
I therefore think this new initiative is a big step forward at a time, when at least to judge from my experience of debates about the CC license at Free Culture UK, there is no clear consensus about terms such as 'Free Content' (and therefore no consensus about the norms of the community).<br />
<br />
Given the common interest in these issues I'd very much like to get further involved in the FCED -- and parhaps also look at a way to merge the OKD and the FCED.<br />
<br />
--RufusPollock<br />
<br />
<br />
== My take ==<br />
<br />
:''"Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other works do not benefit from artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely."''<br />
<br />
I think this needs some revising. Production and quality do not benefit from artificial scarcity- individual works may very much so benefit. The last sentence needs some amending- Free content is not just used Freely, but ''more''. An important distinction to my mind.<br />
<br />
:#''the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression''<br />
:#''the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies ''<br />
<br />
This freedom isn't very clear. Does this involve not charging, or are "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fees acceptable?<br />
<br />
::My take on this question: those fees are not acceptable as normally understood. But it does not involve not charging either. For instance, in Free Software, you can charge whatever you can manage when someone obtains a copy from you. That you cannot do is make them pay you a fee when they then make copies of that copy for themselves.<br />
<br />
:''"Any original work of authorship is copyrighted. Under copyright law, authors are considered God-like "creators" and are given legal powers they can use against those who duplicate "their" content in altered or unaltered form."''<br />
<br />
Personally, I'd like a bit of a mention of the artificiality of copyright. That first line certainly makes it sound like copyright is a God-given natural right. <br />
<br />
More generally, the attribution section strikes me as troublesome. What happens if I take an article, on Fujiwara no Teika, say, which is a stub, and work like the dickens on it, until it is orders of magnitude larger, such that there is not so much as a single word in common with the original article? Should the first person still be credited as the original author? --maru ([[User:129.21.121.235|129.21.121.235]] 06:47, 6 May 2006 (CEST))<br />
<br />
== Adelphi ==<br />
<br />
Please also consult the [http://www.adelphicharter.org/ Adelphi charter].<br />
<br />
And regarding Public domain there is also the concept of "gemeinfrei"/common free in droit' auteur regulation. <br />
i.e. public property vs. free to use<br />
<br />
==The freedom to use and perform the work==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see the word "display" added to this since perform covers music and plays while display would cover films and pictures.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:46, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Since we speak of ''any use, private or public'', and all related rights, this is covered, but I agree that we can & should explicitly enumerate it in the next version.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Discussion list ==<br />
<br />
Is it possible to host the discussion list elsewhere than Google Groups? Not everyone wants to centralize their activity in a Google account. Not to mention that plain-jane Mailman archives are so much more usable than Google's system. Thanks. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:44, 16 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:I can host a mailman list for this on Wikia if there's no objection to that. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 14:18, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks for the offer - but I'd prefer to host the list with Mako. He's already offered to set up a list for us. As a private company in the wiki space which, I hope, will one day adopt the definition, I don't want Wikia to be seen as in any way influencing its content (same reason I wouldn't host the list with Wikimedia).--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks, anything resembling a normal mailing-list with public archives will be ok. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:31, 18 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Metaphor suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to thank the developers of this definition for clearly distinguishing between works that are truly free, and those that are only semi-free. One thing the concept lacks, though, is a simple metaphor as in "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech", that can be used to illustrate the basic distinction of this paradigm in a non-technical way. Not sure if such a thing belongs in an official definition, but I think it's something we should have around. I think I might have come up with something helpful, which is explained in the passage below:<br />
<br />
''Many licenses are called "free", but they are free in different ways. One has to ask, is a work "free to pamphlet" or "free to marionette"? A "free to pamphlet" work may be free to hand out copies (while rewriting or sale is restricted), but a "free to marionette" work is free to adapt into a marionette show, and to sell tickets at the door to rent the theatre and feed the hungry puppetteers.''--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 00:03, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: I think that is a nice metaphor for an essay. I would encourage you to draft an essay here -- I hope that, like the GNU site, freedomdefined.org will eventually be a solid collection of philosophical material.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:13, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I've written something at [[Free to marionette]]. Not sure where it goes in the structure, though.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 09:29, 24 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I've collected that and some other material I found here at [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]. There didn't seem to be any established place for such material till now, so I just went ahead and created one.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 08:01, 10 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Source data ==<br />
<br />
I think the source data section will still need some work to deal with cases where such data is simply not obtainable; IMHO that should not make the work non-free.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:11, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think this is a very tricky part. The source vs. binary duality is very different in the case of a creative work. If I took a photo of a flower would the source data be the flower itself, the raw format of the photo, or would the jpg be enough? If I released a png after adjusting the white balance, would I still have to release the raw format for a work to be free and be excused only if I happen to 'accidentally' destroy the raw data? I think that as long as a work is editable the source data is irrelevant. In the case of software, not releasing source places a technical impediment to modifying the work. In the case of a 3D scene this might also be the case, but in the case of an image it is clearly not. In the case of an audio file, or a film, would the author have to release the off cuts? I would not think so. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 16:07, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think is this fine to distinguish between works where there are no "source data" and where there is. A not yet fleshed-out thought is that anything that can be modified non-destructively should be available for distribution in the preferred form for modification. [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:28, 27 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Copyleft suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to see a [[discussion of copyleft]] and what it needs to have to promote / protect a pool of Free Works.<br />
<br />
==Moral rights==<br />
<br />
There are some moral rights (''droit d'auteur'' not ''copyright'') that I have as an author and due to legal restriction I can't waive them. Does this make my work unfree? This page or [[Permissible restrictions]] does not address this issue.<br />
<br />
PS. You may call me old fashioned, but I don't think sentences like these give a mature and intelligent impression: "They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how 'their content' can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies." [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Samulili Samulili from Wikimedia projects]<br />
:I agree, the hostility is unnecessary and immature. [[User:130.58.68.159|130.58.68.159]] 22:47, 1 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:In my opinion, moral rights do not make your own work un-free, because they don't forbid other people to e.g. make modifications, they allow you to oppose some modifications on a case by case basis. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:21, 6 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Commercial Restrictions==<br />
<br />
What about some restrictions on the commercial distribution of a work? That is, a free culture work can be copied and those copies can be shared but with some restrictions on selling those copies when permission is not granted.<br />
<br />
:That isn't free content. Commercial Restrictions are explicitly not [[permissible restrictions]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 18:20, 3 April 2007 (CEST)<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)</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=3179Talk:Definition/Unstable2007-04-23T18:18:11Z<p>Inkwina: /* Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. <br />
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: <br />
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]]. <br />
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:<br />
Users are free to<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:<br />
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; <br />
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share <br />
enhancements or derived works.<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:<br />
<br />
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.<br />
<br />
Users are free to:<br />
<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim] <br />
<br />
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]<br />
<br />
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.<br />
<br />
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).<br />
<br />
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Final name ==<br />
<br />
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Hu?<br />
: First, welcome back...<br />
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?<br />
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)<br />
<br />
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?<br />
<br />
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".<br />
<br />
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.<br />
<br />
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: It was important to us (Mako and myself, the co-initiators of the definition) to label the definition in a way which is agreeable to the important institutions of the Free Culture movement -- FSF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and so on. The discussion on the wiki was absolutely crucial to the entire process. All the names that have been listed here have been mentioned and repeatedly considered. Mako and I have spoken personally to Lessig, RMS, Moglen, and others about this. Now that, after many hours of talking, we have finally found something everyone seems to be able to agree to (more or less enthusiastically), you will have to understand that I am reluctant to second-guess the decision. Certainly, it is always nicer to have a larger scale community process to give a decision legitimacy, but I also believe that process is not an end in itself, and hope we can move foward together. I certainly appreciate (and am well aware of) all the work you have done on this wiki.<br />
<br />
:: Regarding your specific critique: the strength of "Free Cultural Works", in my opinion, is that it references the notion of "Free Culture" without explicitly being called a "Free Culture Definition". It also reduces the "work (labor)" vs. "work (intellectual)" ambiguity in the singular. For example, if I refer to a CD as a "Free Work", the response "So you've worked for free?" is almost inevitable. I do not agree that "Free Cultural" excludes software or scientific articles; in my opinion, both are very much and very clearly cultural works, and should be explicitly referenced.<br />
<br />
:: That the title of the definition itself is not quite catchy may not be such a bad thing -- we will not attempt to prescribe that you have to call free cultural works by that exact phrase. Instead, what I would like to do is to explicitly reference other phrases which have similar meanings, such as "free content" and "open knowledge".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: I understand you want to put Lessig, RMS and others on our side, but I think we shouldn't care. We have to do this work because FSF and CC refused to take position in the first place, so we are the ones setting a standard.<br />
<br />
::: Anyway, I'm ready to further contribute. But, sincerely, it will be difficult unless things stop being done in private. Regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:06, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: It would be fine if there had been offline discussion, provided that details were posted to the wiki here so that we could also see it, at the time or after the fact. Indeed, you have a wiki, so one might ask why the discussion was not carried out through the wiki, which would seem designed for the task?<br />
<br />
::: Also, like Antoine, I have a great deal of respect for Richard Stallman and for Lawrence Lessig, who through their writings have between them opened my eyes to freedom. Nevertheless, we should not fear to build on that, and hope to equal or exceed what has passed before. <br />
<br />
::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:48, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" border="1" width="80%"><br />
<tr><td><br />
"Definition of Free Cultural Works" suggests [http://creativecommons.org/ "Creative Commons"] and the associated [http://www.free-culture.cc/ "Free Culture" book]. While these are both brilliant, they suggest a range of licenses most of which are non-free. We need to focus on the free/<em>libre</em> licenses which conform to the definition we are developing. <br />
<br />
Prefer something like "Definition of Libre Works" or "Definition of Free/Libre Resources", etc. - or simply "Libre Definition" - Kim Tucker 30 October 2006.</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
:::: I concur with your comments, and I'm not terribly happy either with the term "Cultural" nor with the term "Works", for various reasons. Libre Definition or Libre Content Definition would be much more acceptable, and I often use the term "Software libre" in preference to "Free software" for similar reasons. So far Libre is not really an English word in itself, but perhaps we should adopt it and make it so anyway, since "Free" in current English has too many connotations of both "Libre" and "Gratis" which are avoided by use of a more precise term.<br />
<br />
:::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 00:55, 31 October 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: ''Libre'' doesn't work for me -- too strange and foreign, too easily to confuse with "Libri" (books). IMHO focusing the "Free Culture" movement on a clearer notion of freedom is a worthy goal in its own right.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:32, 2 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: That's a reasonable point, and is the same reason that "Free software" is the normal expression in English, rather than "Software libre" although that can of course be used as well - and much of our language derives from expressions which were originally "strange and foreign" but became familiar and commonplace because people started using them anyway.<br />
<br />
::::: For our purposes it's unfortunate, due to the confusion in English between "libre" and "gratis" according to context, where "libre" captures our intended meaning. So far the best expression I've seen is "Free Content Definition" as in the present unstable definition, as dropping the "and Expression" was a distinct improvement, and we can explain that we mean ''Free content'' in the sense of liberty not price. --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:09, 5 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::::: Libre disambiguates, while "free" is foreign and confusing to most people on the planet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre#Libre Wikipedia on Libre] indicates that the word "Libre" is used in various [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages Romance languages] while "gratis is common in Germanic and Romance languages. So, at least speakers of those languages would identify with these terms, and no-one would be confused about what is meant. <br />
In various circles, the term FLOSS is being used more and more - probably encouraged by high profile research projects such as [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSWorld] and [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSPols] among others and in articles in [http://www.firstmonday.org First Monday] where the acronym FLOSS is used more than FOSS (the L is significant).<br />
I think it is time (and would be useful) to make "libre" an accepted English word - like so many others from the Romance languages :-). [[User:ktucker|Kim]] 20070118<br />
<br />
== look forward to seeing updates, anyway ==<br />
<br />
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.<br />
<br />
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else ''generalised'', applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's ''Cultural'', and whether or not it's a ''Work'' however that is defined.<br />
<br />
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:<br />
<br />
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.<br />
<br />
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ philosophy] page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.<br />
<br />
:regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I also find the use of the term "god-like" unsavoury. This term might be offensive to parctitioners of certain faiths, particulary if or when the definition is translated to certain languages. I belive that such a definition would be most useful if it written in an as unequivocal a language as possible, while at the same time avoiding a legalistic style. Not that this is an easy task, but avoiding emotionally charged language would help.<br />
<br />
btw, it is the laws, not the countries that create the situation, this is not clear in the current.<br />
"thier content" is metaphoric and emotional, and I'm not clear why its re-use, not plain use.<br />
<br />
I would rewrite this sentence as follows: <br />
<cite> They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. </cite> to<br />
'''Such laws provide authors with extraordianry rights, effectivly granting them an exlusive monopoly as to how the content they create can be used.'''<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:33, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
:[[Talk:Definition#.22god-like_creators.22.3F|Additional thoughts.]] Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 23:57, 10 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Added "freedom to use" to the preamble ==<br />
<br />
As it was the preamble was not consistent with subsequent sections; please amend and re-edit as may be necessary.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:42, 26 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== (re)distribute v. communicate ==<br />
<br />
When we talk about information distribution esseantially equals communication. After all, the network, and the community, consists of people, and the information that is shared by the community isn't "distributed" it is "communicated".<br />
<br />
I thus argue that<br />
<br />
# the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
# the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works <br />
<br />
should be changed to something along the lines of <br />
<br />
# the freedom to communicate the information or expression to anyone, without restriction<br />
# the freedom to communicate mutated versions of the information or expression<br />
<br />
== Definition and / or manifesto? ==<br />
<br />
The current preamble asserts that (all) cultural works should be free. Is this really to be part of the definition? My guess is that many people are interested in a definition, without necessarily being in support of this claim. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 17:48, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Saying that works of authorship should be free seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement to me. The definition does not advocate abolishing copyright law to ''achieve'' that goal, nor does it set any kind of timetable -- in fact, it doesn't even assert that this goal is achievable for all works of authorship. It merely expresses a clear moral preference of free over non-free works. This moral preference is, indeed, something which I think we should communicate, as the definition is not meant to be merely a sterile legal text, but part of a social movement which agrees with this very basic notion -- but may favor different methods to achieve it, or even disagree upon its ultimate feasibility.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:49, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: It is not my intention to question that the preference of free works should be stated on the site. Still, it is hardly part the definition of a free work. Therefore, I would suggest another page for the moral and philosophy, separated from the definition. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 15:29, 1 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this definition refers, and implicitly applies exclusively to, Digital renditions. I do not know if this is intentional, but it is defiantly not a bad thing. I believe that for a work to be really free it needs to be replicatable (i.e. it should be possible to make a perfect copy, not that it is possible to come up with it again from scratch). This is only practically possible (easy) with text (hence the power of writing) and today with digital media. If there is agreement with this vein of thought I think that it should be made more explicit in the definition. <br />
<br />
This would nicely lead to the statement that the freedoms required by the definition cannot be technically impaired or limited (e.g. through the use of propriety digital formats) <br />
e.g. an audio clip can be released under CC-BY-SA as an .ogg and as a .wma, but only the .ogg version should be considered free under this definition.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 12:35, 9 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:Actually, the definition tries to take physical (non-digital) works into account. A license like the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] was explicitly drafted with physical works in mind as well. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:38, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: <cite> ...make it possible for a growing part of humanity to access, create, modify, publish and distribute cultural works that can be represented in digital form ...</cite> This sentence gives the opposite impression. It's really a matter of clarity.<br />
::Also can this definition apply to an original oil painting on canvas? how can "The freedom to redistribute copies" be reconciled with "No technical restrictions" when the only way to make a copy of an oil painting is to employ a copy artist with great technical skill to make a copy; what is somtimes called a "fake". -[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 03:49, 21 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Ok, the quote above is part of the preamble, it explains the technical context that makes free content more and more relevant. But the definition itself is not specific to digital works.<br />
:::As for making copies of a painting, I don't see having skills as a "technical restriction". For making a copy of a digital image, you also need technical skills (copying a file on a computer is a skill, even if a basic one). In the spirit of this definition, a restriction is a burden that is deliberately added by the author/producer/distributor, not a requirement inherent to the kind of work. If I want to modify a piece of software and recompile it, I'd better know how to code: is it a "technical restriction" too?<br />
:::By the way, while you need some very good skills to make a near-perfect copy, you can also make a very approximate copy which would still qualify as a breach of "intellectual property" if the original painting was not under a free license.<br />
:::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:21, 21 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I think the definition can be reconciled by requiring any work which can be modified non-destructively to allow modification -- but any work which cannot be should have no restrictions on derivatives which do not destroy the original work. ("No technical restrictions" may even include not being displayed in a venue which does not allow photography -- which is a huge technical restriction right now on creating derivatives of works which should have fallen into the public domain.) [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:13, 28 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Good point Kat. But the real problem is not with deriviative works but with copies. It is the Freedom to redistribute copies that creates a problem. Contrast the digital domain, where a copy of a pice of code has the same value (not neccecarly monatary) as the original, with the art domain where a copy always has a different value (not nessecarly minor) by virtue of being a copy. Then again contrast that with music, where a score can be copied, but the music itself is only ever interpreted never copied, even if the same piece is performed twice in a row by the same person. Again the technical skill to copy/compile code can be easly acquired, and is widely available and distributied, espessially when compared to the ability to make 'indistinguishable' copies of artwork, which is a rare abilty at best, impossible at worst. A rough copy, might infringe copyright, but it is a deriviative work. I apologize for being the devil's advocate, but I belive that if this definition is to be used outside of the domain of digital works it need to be written in a way that makes sense to people who might have a very different idea of what "to copy a creative work" means, different from that of geeks and probabbly different from one another's. I, more or less, understand what is meant and the inherent limitations because I'm familiar with FLOSS and wikipedia, but if I were to read this text the the Music Professor who I occasionally have to help use the photocopier, 'cause he can't even set it to A3, his interpretaion will be that this was written by a bunch of rebles tring to lay their hands on his royalties :-) --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:18, 23 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== The role of the source file requirement? ==<br />
<br />
I agree that something like the source file requirement needs to be included. I think it aims at several related ideals:<br />
<br />
# Providing a modifiable format (e.g. a text file rather than a PDF)<br />
# Providing a format informative to humans (e.g. a musical score rather than an Ogg Vorbis recording)<br />
# Providing necessary information that is only summarized or analyzed in the distributed work at all (e.g. providing the actual coded dataset for a paper reporting the results of a regression analysis)<br />
<br />
I'm not sure that the "source file" concept quite addresses these issues. As applied to software, source code gets at (1) very well, (2) pretty well, and (3) doesn't usually arise. I wonder whether there is some more helpful term the definition could use, or perhaps whether the item itself should be split into more than one.</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=3048Talk:Definition/Unstable2007-03-21T02:49:35Z<p>Inkwina: /* Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. <br />
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: <br />
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]]. <br />
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:<br />
Users are free to<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:<br />
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; <br />
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share <br />
enhancements or derived works.<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:<br />
<br />
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.<br />
<br />
Users are free to:<br />
<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim] <br />
<br />
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]<br />
<br />
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.<br />
<br />
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).<br />
<br />
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Final name ==<br />
<br />
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Hu?<br />
: First, welcome back...<br />
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?<br />
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)<br />
<br />
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?<br />
<br />
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".<br />
<br />
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.<br />
<br />
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: It was important to us (Mako and myself, the co-initiators of the definition) to label the definition in a way which is agreeable to the important institutions of the Free Culture movement -- FSF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and so on. The discussion on the wiki was absolutely crucial to the entire process. All the names that have been listed here have been mentioned and repeatedly considered. Mako and I have spoken personally to Lessig, RMS, Moglen, and others about this. Now that, after many hours of talking, we have finally found something everyone seems to be able to agree to (more or less enthusiastically), you will have to understand that I am reluctant to second-guess the decision. Certainly, it is always nicer to have a larger scale community process to give a decision legitimacy, but I also believe that process is not an end in itself, and hope we can move foward together. I certainly appreciate (and am well aware of) all the work you have done on this wiki.<br />
<br />
:: Regarding your specific critique: the strength of "Free Cultural Works", in my opinion, is that it references the notion of "Free Culture" without explicitly being called a "Free Culture Definition". It also reduces the "work (labor)" vs. "work (intellectual)" ambiguity in the singular. For example, if I refer to a CD as a "Free Work", the response "So you've worked for free?" is almost inevitable. I do not agree that "Free Cultural" excludes software or scientific articles; in my opinion, both are very much and very clearly cultural works, and should be explicitly referenced.<br />
<br />
:: That the title of the definition itself is not quite catchy may not be such a bad thing -- we will not attempt to prescribe that you have to call free cultural works by that exact phrase. Instead, what I would like to do is to explicitly reference other phrases which have similar meanings, such as "free content" and "open knowledge".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: I understand you want to put Lessig, RMS and others on our side, but I think we shouldn't care. We have to do this work because FSF and CC refused to take position in the first place, so we are the ones setting a standard.<br />
<br />
::: Anyway, I'm ready to further contribute. But, sincerely, it will be difficult unless things stop being done in private. Regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:06, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: It would be fine if there had been offline discussion, provided that details were posted to the wiki here so that we could also see it, at the time or after the fact. Indeed, you have a wiki, so one might ask why the discussion was not carried out through the wiki, which would seem designed for the task?<br />
<br />
::: Also, like Antoine, I have a great deal of respect for Richard Stallman and for Lawrence Lessig, who through their writings have between them opened my eyes to freedom. Nevertheless, we should not fear to build on that, and hope to equal or exceed what has passed before. <br />
<br />
::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:48, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" border="1" width="80%"><br />
<tr><td><br />
"Definition of Free Cultural Works" suggests [http://creativecommons.org/ "Creative Commons"] and the associated [http://www.free-culture.cc/ "Free Culture" book]. While these are both brilliant, they suggest a range of licenses most of which are non-free. We need to focus on the free/<em>libre</em> licenses which conform to the definition we are developing. <br />
<br />
Prefer something like "Definition of Libre Works" or "Definition of Free/Libre Resources", etc. - or simply "Libre Definition" - Kim Tucker 30 October 2006.</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
:::: I concur with your comments, and I'm not terribly happy either with the term "Cultural" nor with the term "Works", for various reasons. Libre Definition or Libre Content Definition would be much more acceptable, and I often use the term "Software libre" in preference to "Free software" for similar reasons. So far Libre is not really an English word in itself, but perhaps we should adopt it and make it so anyway, since "Free" in current English has too many connotations of both "Libre" and "Gratis" which are avoided by use of a more precise term.<br />
<br />
:::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 00:55, 31 October 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: ''Libre'' doesn't work for me -- too strange and foreign, too easily to confuse with "Libri" (books). IMHO focusing the "Free Culture" movement on a clearer notion of freedom is a worthy goal in its own right.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:32, 2 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: That's a reasonable point, and is the same reason that "Free software" is the normal expression in English, rather than "Software libre" although that can of course be used as well - and much of our language derives from expressions which were originally "strange and foreign" but became familiar and commonplace because people started using them anyway.<br />
<br />
::::: For our purposes it's unfortunate, due to the confusion in English between "libre" and "gratis" according to context, where "libre" captures our intended meaning. So far the best expression I've seen is "Free Content Definition" as in the present unstable definition, as dropping the "and Expression" was a distinct improvement, and we can explain that we mean ''Free content'' in the sense of liberty not price. --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:09, 5 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::::: Libre disambiguates, while "free" is foreign and confusing to most people on the planet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre#Libre Wikipedia on Libre] indicates that the word "Libre" is used in various [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages Romance languages] while "gratis is common in Germanic and Romance languages. So, at least speakers of those languages would identify with these terms, and no-one would be confused about what is meant. <br />
In various circles, the term FLOSS is being used more and more - probably encouraged by high profile research projects such as [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSWorld] and [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSPols] among others and in articles in [http://www.firstmonday.org First Monday] where the acronym FLOSS is used more than FOSS (the L is significant).<br />
I think it is time (and would be useful) to make "libre" an accepted English word - like so many others from the Romance languages :-). [[User:ktucker|Kim]] 20070118<br />
<br />
== look forward to seeing updates, anyway ==<br />
<br />
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.<br />
<br />
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else ''generalised'', applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's ''Cultural'', and whether or not it's a ''Work'' however that is defined.<br />
<br />
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:<br />
<br />
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.<br />
<br />
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ philosophy] page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.<br />
<br />
:regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I also find the use of the term "god-like" unsavoury. This term might be offensive to parctitioners of certain faiths, particulary if or when the definition is translated to certain languages. I belive that such a definition would be most useful if it written in an as unequivocal a language as possible, while at the same time avoiding a legalistic style. Not that this is an easy task, but avoiding emotionally charged language would help.<br />
<br />
btw, it is the laws, not the countries that create the situation, this is not clear in the current.<br />
"thier content" is metaphoric and emotional, and I'm not clear why its re-use, not plain use.<br />
<br />
I would rewrite this sentence as follows: <br />
<cite> They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. </cite> to<br />
'''Such laws provide authors with extraordianry rights, effectivly granting them an exlusive monopoly as to how the content they create can be used.'''<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:33, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Added "freedom to use" to the preamble ==<br />
<br />
As it was the preamble was not consistent with subsequent sections; please amend and re-edit as may be necessary.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:42, 26 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== (re)distribute v. communicate ==<br />
<br />
When we talk about information distribution esseantially equals communication. After all, the network, and the community, consists of people, and the information that is shared by the community isn't "distributed" it is "communicated".<br />
<br />
I thus argue that<br />
<br />
# the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
# the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works <br />
<br />
should be changed to something along the lines of <br />
<br />
# the freedom to communicate the information or expression to anyone, without restriction<br />
# the freedom to communicate mutated versions of the information or expression<br />
<br />
== Definition and / or manifesto? ==<br />
<br />
The current preamble asserts that (all) cultural works should be free. Is this really to be part of the definition? My guess is that many people are interested in a definition, without necessarily being in support of this claim. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 17:48, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Saying that works of authorship should be free seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement to me. The definition does not advocate abolishing copyright law to ''achieve'' that goal, nor does it set any kind of timetable -- in fact, it doesn't even assert that this goal is achievable for all works of authorship. It merely expresses a clear moral preference of free over non-free works. This moral preference is, indeed, something which I think we should communicate, as the definition is not meant to be merely a sterile legal text, but part of a social movement which agrees with this very basic notion -- but may favor different methods to achieve it, or even disagree upon its ultimate feasibility.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:49, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: It is not my intention to question that the preference of free works should be stated on the site. Still, it is hardly part the definition of a free work. Therefore, I would suggest another page for the moral and philosophy, separated from the definition. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 15:29, 1 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this definition refers, and implicitly applies exclusively to, Digital renditions. I do not know if this is intentional, but it is defiantly not a bad thing. I believe that for a work to be really free it needs to be replicatable (i.e. it should be possible to make a perfect copy, not that it is possible to come up with it again from scratch). This is only practically possible (easy) with text (hence the power of writing) and today with digital media. If there is agreement with this vein of thought I think that it should be made more explicit in the definition. <br />
<br />
This would nicely lead to the statement that the freedoms required by the definition cannot be technically impaired or limited (e.g. through the use of propriety digital formats) <br />
e.g. an audio clip can be released under CC-BY-SA as an .ogg and as a .wma, but only the .ogg version should be considered free under this definition.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 12:35, 9 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:Actually, the definition tries to take physical (non-digital) works into account. A license like the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] was explicitly drafted with physical works in mind as well. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:38, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: <cite> ...make it possible for a growing part of humanity to access, create, modify, publish and distribute cultural works that can be represented in digital form ...</cite> This sentence gives the opposite impression. It's really a matter of clarity.<br />
::Also can this definition apply to an original oil painting on canvas? how can "The freedom to redistribute copies" be reconciled with "No technical restrictions" when the only way to make a copy of an oil painting is to employ a copy artist with great technical skill to make a copy; what is somtimes called a "fake". -[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 03:49, 21 March 2007 (CET)</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=3032Talk:Definition2007-03-13T15:07:16Z<p>Inkwina: /* Source data */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Typos ==<br />
<br />
Under "Permissible Restrictions": "... for the protection of protection of ...". This typo should not exist in a stable version. --[[User:Mrnorwood|Mrnorwood]] 18:48, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
: Thanks,fixed.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:21, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== What about the applicable law? ==<br />
<br />
If a license has a clause about the applicable law, is the license free?<br />
In my opinion, this clause is a problem because only the people that know a certain law can understand license's implied sides.<br />
<br />
: I think CC are working on licenses covered by Berne/WIPO law only. But a license needs a jurisdiction to avoid confusion or argument over terms and meaning, so in this case having a jurisdiction may protect freedom. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 20:06, 14 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== First Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
I had some issues with the definition of free content here. Firstly, the document attempts to define "free content" as so many have done in the past, yet there is no clear definition of what is and isn't free content in the "free content movement" you discuss. It concerns me that a definition is being created in isolation from the wider community without proper discussion.<br />
<br />
I see the definition here models itself on the free software definition, but misses several important and fundamental aspects:<br />
<br />
How does the definition handle digital works (such as images, documents, etc) versus non-digitual works (such as hard-copy books, paintings, sculptures, etc)?<br />
<br />
How should digital works be treated? A digital work, such as a wordprocessor document, can be viewed in two ways: firstly, as a work in and of itself, i.e. content, but also as a piece of software itself that can display a final work. Should you only have the freedom to study a work (content), or should you also have the freedom to study how a work was created (software)?<br />
<br />
The definition talks about the freedom to make and release (distribute?) modifications but it doesn't say anything about source copies of work. I can think of several examples where the freedom to make modifications can be provided, but without a source copy of a work (i.e. in the format preferred for making modifications) making modifications could be prohibitive:<br />
<br />
* Protected PDF - sure, decrypting such a PDF is possible but its a) tricky to export a PDF to a format that can be modified with all the information intact (images, tables, etc), and b) it may be illegal to decrypt protected PDFs in certain juristictions (DMCA?)<br />
* Text content as image files - a user could allow users the freedom to modify his written works but only distribute them in image format. It is difficult for downstream users to then extract the text content<br />
<br />
You also talk about "free content licenses" where you should really be talking about free content works: a license enables a free content work, but<br />
<br />
Free experession is not the same as free content: you can have the right to free expresssion without having free content, and free content does not guarantee free expression.<br />
<br />
I hope this is helpful. --[[User:Rgladwell|Rgladwell]] 20:25, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for your comments. If you don't mind, I will move them to [[Talk:Definition/Unstable]] and respond there, just to have all comments in one place. First thoughts: You raise a very good point. Is it possible for something to be free content without the "source code" (or something equivalent) being available? Under the current definition, it is. Perhaps we need to find a wording that requires source availabiliy where such sources are essential to modifying the work. More later,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:42, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I've dispatched some of the comments into their own sections in Definition/Unstable. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:16, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Is there somewhere I can sign? -rhY-<br />
<br />
::In terms of source requirements, should it be more along the lines of source must be supplied where it existed in the making of the derivative and in the case of simple copies, if source was available for the original?<br />
<br />
Wow ... you even frame/structure Talk?! ... meh. Anyhow, ''nota'': you have Definition as your default index (wrong ... on basic principle, wrong ... you program? think trampolene) but Definition links to the rest of the site very very poorly. --BenTrem [[User:68.148.26.220|68.148.26.220]] 01:07, 25 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== versioning ==<br />
License 333 and version 0.66 -- it is a sign! Excellent.<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Open Knowledge Definition ==<br />
<br />
Last september/october the [http://www.okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation] 'ported' the Open Source Definiton to produce the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition] ([http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html full text]).<br />
<br />
This came out of various discussions with people working on open geodata, open access, and open databases of scientific data. As I wrote then:<br />
<br />
"The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) provides an answer to the question: what is open knowledge? It puts forward, in a simple and clear manner, principles that define open knowledge and which open knowledge licenses must satisfy.<br />
<br />
The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access' journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential blurring of what is open and what is not.<br />
<br />
In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition, by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in achieving these ends."<br />
<br />
I therefore think this new initiative is a big step forward at a time, when at least to judge from my experience of debates about the CC license at Free Culture UK, there is no clear consensus about terms such as 'Free Content' (and therefore no consensus about the norms of the community).<br />
<br />
Given the common interest in these issues I'd very much like to get further involved in the FCED -- and parhaps also look at a way to merge the OKD and the FCED.<br />
<br />
--RufusPollock<br />
<br />
<br />
== My take ==<br />
<br />
:''"Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other works do not benefit from artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely."''<br />
<br />
I think this needs some revising. Production and quality do not benefit from artificial scarcity- individual works may very much so benefit. The last sentence needs some amending- Free content is not just used Freely, but ''more''. An important distinction to my mind.<br />
<br />
:#''the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression''<br />
:#''the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies ''<br />
<br />
This freedom isn't very clear. Does this involve not charging, or are "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fees acceptable?<br />
<br />
::My take on this question: those fees are not acceptable as normally understood. But it does not involve not charging either. For instance, in Free Software, you can charge whatever you can manage when someone obtains a copy from you. That you cannot do is make them pay you a fee when they then make copies of that copy for themselves.<br />
<br />
:''"Any original work of authorship is copyrighted. Under copyright law, authors are considered God-like "creators" and are given legal powers they can use against those who duplicate "their" content in altered or unaltered form."''<br />
<br />
Personally, I'd like a bit of a mention of the artificiality of copyright. That first line certainly makes it sound like copyright is a God-given natural right. <br />
<br />
More generally, the attribution section strikes me as troublesome. What happens if I take an article, on Fujiwara no Teika, say, which is a stub, and work like the dickens on it, until it is orders of magnitude larger, such that there is not so much as a single word in common with the original article? Should the first person still be credited as the original author? --maru ([[User:129.21.121.235|129.21.121.235]] 06:47, 6 May 2006 (CEST))<br />
<br />
== Adelphi ==<br />
<br />
Please also consult the [http://www.adelphicharter.org/ Adelphi charter].<br />
<br />
And regarding Public domain there is also the concept of "gemeinfrei"/common free in droit' auteur regulation. <br />
i.e. public property vs. free to use<br />
<br />
==The freedom to use and perform the work==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see the word "display" added to this since perform covers music and plays while display would cover films and pictures.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:46, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Since we speak of ''any use, private or public'', and all related rights, this is covered, but I agree that we can & should explicitly enumerate it in the next version.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Discussion list ==<br />
<br />
Is it possible to host the discussion list elsewhere than Google Groups? Not everyone wants to centralize their activity in a Google account. Not to mention that plain-jane Mailman archives are so much more usable than Google's system. Thanks. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:44, 16 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:I can host a mailman list for this on Wikia if there's no objection to that. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 14:18, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks for the offer - but I'd prefer to host the list with Mako. He's already offered to set up a list for us. As a private company in the wiki space which, I hope, will one day adopt the definition, I don't want Wikia to be seen as in any way influencing its content (same reason I wouldn't host the list with Wikimedia).--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks, anything resembling a normal mailing-list with public archives will be ok. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:31, 18 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Metaphor suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to thank the developers of this definition for clearly distinguishing between works that are truly free, and those that are only semi-free. One thing the concept lacks, though, is a simple metaphor as in "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech", that can be used to illustrate the basic distinction of this paradigm in a non-technical way. Not sure if such a thing belongs in an official definition, but I think it's something we should have around. I think I might have come up with something helpful, which is explained in the passage below:<br />
<br />
''Many licenses are called "free", but they are free in different ways. One has to ask, is a work "free to pamphlet" or "free to marionette"? A "free to pamphlet" work may be free to hand out copies (while rewriting or sale is restricted), but a "free to marionette" work is free to adapt into a marionette show, and to sell tickets at the door to rent the theatre and feed the hungry puppetteers.''--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 00:03, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: I think that is a nice metaphor for an essay. I would encourage you to draft an essay here -- I hope that, like the GNU site, freedomdefined.org will eventually be a solid collection of philosophical material.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:13, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I've written something at [[Free to marionette]]. Not sure where it goes in the structure, though.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 09:29, 24 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I've collected that and some other material I found here at [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]. There didn't seem to be any established place for such material till now, so I just went ahead and created one.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 08:01, 10 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Source data ==<br />
<br />
I think the source data section will still need some work to deal with cases where such data is simply not obtainable; IMHO that should not make the work non-free.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:11, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think this is a very tricky part. The source vs. binary duality is very different in the case of a creative work. If I took a photo of a flower would the source data be the flower itself, the raw format of the photo, or would the jpg be enough? If I released a png after adjusting the white balance, would I still have to release the raw format for a work to be free and be excused only if I happen to 'accidentally' destroy the raw data? I think that as long as a work is editable the source data is irrelevant. In the case of software, not releasing source places a technical impediment to modifying the work. In the case of a 3D scene this might also be the case, but in the case of an image it is clearly not. In the case of an audio file, or a film, would the author have to release the off cuts? I would not think so. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 16:07, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== 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.</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=3031Talk:Definition/Unstable2007-03-13T14:52:10Z<p>Inkwina: /* Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. <br />
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: <br />
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]]. <br />
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:<br />
Users are free to<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:<br />
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; <br />
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share <br />
enhancements or derived works.<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:<br />
<br />
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.<br />
<br />
Users are free to:<br />
<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim] <br />
<br />
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]<br />
<br />
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.<br />
<br />
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).<br />
<br />
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Final name ==<br />
<br />
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Hu?<br />
: First, welcome back...<br />
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?<br />
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)<br />
<br />
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?<br />
<br />
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".<br />
<br />
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.<br />
<br />
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: It was important to us (Mako and myself, the co-initiators of the definition) to label the definition in a way which is agreeable to the important institutions of the Free Culture movement -- FSF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and so on. The discussion on the wiki was absolutely crucial to the entire process. All the names that have been listed here have been mentioned and repeatedly considered. Mako and I have spoken personally to Lessig, RMS, Moglen, and others about this. Now that, after many hours of talking, we have finally found something everyone seems to be able to agree to (more or less enthusiastically), you will have to understand that I am reluctant to second-guess the decision. Certainly, it is always nicer to have a larger scale community process to give a decision legitimacy, but I also believe that process is not an end in itself, and hope we can move foward together. I certainly appreciate (and am well aware of) all the work you have done on this wiki.<br />
<br />
:: Regarding your specific critique: the strength of "Free Cultural Works", in my opinion, is that it references the notion of "Free Culture" without explicitly being called a "Free Culture Definition". It also reduces the "work (labor)" vs. "work (intellectual)" ambiguity in the singular. For example, if I refer to a CD as a "Free Work", the response "So you've worked for free?" is almost inevitable. I do not agree that "Free Cultural" excludes software or scientific articles; in my opinion, both are very much and very clearly cultural works, and should be explicitly referenced.<br />
<br />
:: That the title of the definition itself is not quite catchy may not be such a bad thing -- we will not attempt to prescribe that you have to call free cultural works by that exact phrase. Instead, what I would like to do is to explicitly reference other phrases which have similar meanings, such as "free content" and "open knowledge".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: I understand you want to put Lessig, RMS and others on our side, but I think we shouldn't care. We have to do this work because FSF and CC refused to take position in the first place, so we are the ones setting a standard.<br />
<br />
::: Anyway, I'm ready to further contribute. But, sincerely, it will be difficult unless things stop being done in private. Regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:06, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: It would be fine if there had been offline discussion, provided that details were posted to the wiki here so that we could also see it, at the time or after the fact. Indeed, you have a wiki, so one might ask why the discussion was not carried out through the wiki, which would seem designed for the task?<br />
<br />
::: Also, like Antoine, I have a great deal of respect for Richard Stallman and for Lawrence Lessig, who through their writings have between them opened my eyes to freedom. Nevertheless, we should not fear to build on that, and hope to equal or exceed what has passed before. <br />
<br />
::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:48, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" border="1" width="80%"><br />
<tr><td><br />
"Definition of Free Cultural Works" suggests [http://creativecommons.org/ "Creative Commons"] and the associated [http://www.free-culture.cc/ "Free Culture" book]. While these are both brilliant, they suggest a range of licenses most of which are non-free. We need to focus on the free/<em>libre</em> licenses which conform to the definition we are developing. <br />
<br />
Prefer something like "Definition of Libre Works" or "Definition of Free/Libre Resources", etc. - or simply "Libre Definition" - Kim Tucker 30 October 2006.</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
:::: I concur with your comments, and I'm not terribly happy either with the term "Cultural" nor with the term "Works", for various reasons. Libre Definition or Libre Content Definition would be much more acceptable, and I often use the term "Software libre" in preference to "Free software" for similar reasons. So far Libre is not really an English word in itself, but perhaps we should adopt it and make it so anyway, since "Free" in current English has too many connotations of both "Libre" and "Gratis" which are avoided by use of a more precise term.<br />
<br />
:::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 00:55, 31 October 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: ''Libre'' doesn't work for me -- too strange and foreign, too easily to confuse with "Libri" (books). IMHO focusing the "Free Culture" movement on a clearer notion of freedom is a worthy goal in its own right.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:32, 2 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: That's a reasonable point, and is the same reason that "Free software" is the normal expression in English, rather than "Software libre" although that can of course be used as well - and much of our language derives from expressions which were originally "strange and foreign" but became familiar and commonplace because people started using them anyway.<br />
<br />
::::: For our purposes it's unfortunate, due to the confusion in English between "libre" and "gratis" according to context, where "libre" captures our intended meaning. So far the best expression I've seen is "Free Content Definition" as in the present unstable definition, as dropping the "and Expression" was a distinct improvement, and we can explain that we mean ''Free content'' in the sense of liberty not price. --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:09, 5 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::::: Libre disambiguates, while "free" is foreign and confusing to most people on the planet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre#Libre Wikipedia on Libre] indicates that the word "Libre" is used in various [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages Romance languages] while "gratis is common in Germanic and Romance languages. So, at least speakers of those languages would identify with these terms, and no-one would be confused about what is meant. <br />
In various circles, the term FLOSS is being used more and more - probably encouraged by high profile research projects such as [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSWorld] and [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSPols] among others and in articles in [http://www.firstmonday.org First Monday] where the acronym FLOSS is used more than FOSS (the L is significant).<br />
I think it is time (and would be useful) to make "libre" an accepted English word - like so many others from the Romance languages :-). [[User:ktucker|Kim]] 20070118<br />
<br />
== look forward to seeing updates, anyway ==<br />
<br />
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.<br />
<br />
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else ''generalised'', applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's ''Cultural'', and whether or not it's a ''Work'' however that is defined.<br />
<br />
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:<br />
<br />
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.<br />
<br />
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ philosophy] page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.<br />
<br />
:regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I also find the use of the term "god-like" unsavoury. This term might be offensive to parctitioners of certain faiths, particulary if or when the definition is translated to certain languages. I belive that such a definition would be most useful if it written in an as unequivocal a language as possible, while at the same time avoiding a legalistic style. Not that this is an easy task, but avoiding emotionally charged language would help.<br />
<br />
btw, it is the laws, not the countries that create the situation, this is not clear in the current.<br />
"thier content" is metaphoric and emotional, and I'm not clear why its re-use, not plain use.<br />
<br />
I would rewrite this sentence as follows: <br />
<cite> They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. </cite> to<br />
'''Such laws provide authors with extraordianry rights, effectivly granting them an exlusive monopoly as to how the content they create can be used.'''<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:33, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Added "freedom to use" to the preamble ==<br />
<br />
As it was the preamble was not consistent with subsequent sections; please amend and re-edit as may be necessary.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:42, 26 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== (re)distribute v. communicate ==<br />
<br />
When we talk about information distribution esseantially equals communication. After all, the network, and the community, consists of people, and the information that is shared by the community isn't "distributed" it is "communicated".<br />
<br />
I thus argue that<br />
<br />
# the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
# the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works <br />
<br />
should be changed to something along the lines of <br />
<br />
# the freedom to communicate the information or expression to anyone, without restriction<br />
# the freedom to communicate mutated versions of the information or expression<br />
<br />
== Definition and / or manifesto? ==<br />
<br />
The current preamble asserts that (all) cultural works should be free. Is this really to be part of the definition? My guess is that many people are interested in a definition, without necessarily being in support of this claim. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 17:48, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Saying that works of authorship should be free seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement to me. The definition does not advocate abolishing copyright law to ''achieve'' that goal, nor does it set any kind of timetable -- in fact, it doesn't even assert that this goal is achievable for all works of authorship. It merely expresses a clear moral preference of free over non-free works. This moral preference is, indeed, something which I think we should communicate, as the definition is not meant to be merely a sterile legal text, but part of a social movement which agrees with this very basic notion -- but may favor different methods to achieve it, or even disagree upon its ultimate feasibility.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:49, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: It is not my intention to question that the preference of free works should be stated on the site. Still, it is hardly part the definition of a free work. Therefore, I would suggest another page for the moral and philosophy, separated from the definition. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 15:29, 1 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this definition refers, and implicitly applies exclusively to, Digital renditions. I do not know if this is intentional, but it is defiantly not a bad thing. I believe that for a work to be really free it needs to be replicatable (i.e. it should be possible to make a perfect copy, not that it is possible to come up with it again from scratch). This is only practically possible (easy) with text (hence the power of writing) and today with digital media. If there is agreement with this vein of thought I think that it should be made more explicit in the definition. <br />
<br />
This would nicely lead to the statement that the freedoms required by the definition cannot be technically impaired or limited (e.g. through the use of propriety digital formats) <br />
e.g. an audio clip can be released under CC-BY-SA as an .ogg and as a .wma, but only the .ogg version should be considered free under this definition.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 12:35, 9 March 2007 (CET)</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:Inkwina&diff=3000User:Inkwina2007-03-09T11:36:53Z<p>Inkwina: New page: vide: http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Phsi</p>
<hr />
<div>vide: http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Phsi</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=2999Talk:Definition/Unstable2007-03-09T11:36:20Z<p>Inkwina: /* DIgital vs. Analog (non-digital) */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. <br />
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: <br />
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]]. <br />
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:<br />
Users are free to<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:<br />
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; <br />
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share <br />
enhancements or derived works.<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:<br />
<br />
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.<br />
<br />
Users are free to:<br />
<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim] <br />
<br />
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]<br />
<br />
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.<br />
<br />
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).<br />
<br />
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Final name ==<br />
<br />
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Hu?<br />
: First, welcome back...<br />
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?<br />
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)<br />
<br />
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?<br />
<br />
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".<br />
<br />
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.<br />
<br />
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: It was important to us (Mako and myself, the co-initiators of the definition) to label the definition in a way which is agreeable to the important institutions of the Free Culture movement -- FSF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and so on. The discussion on the wiki was absolutely crucial to the entire process. All the names that have been listed here have been mentioned and repeatedly considered. Mako and I have spoken personally to Lessig, RMS, Moglen, and others about this. Now that, after many hours of talking, we have finally found something everyone seems to be able to agree to (more or less enthusiastically), you will have to understand that I am reluctant to second-guess the decision. Certainly, it is always nicer to have a larger scale community process to give a decision legitimacy, but I also believe that process is not an end in itself, and hope we can move foward together. I certainly appreciate (and am well aware of) all the work you have done on this wiki.<br />
<br />
:: Regarding your specific critique: the strength of "Free Cultural Works", in my opinion, is that it references the notion of "Free Culture" without explicitly being called a "Free Culture Definition". It also reduces the "work (labor)" vs. "work (intellectual)" ambiguity in the singular. For example, if I refer to a CD as a "Free Work", the response "So you've worked for free?" is almost inevitable. I do not agree that "Free Cultural" excludes software or scientific articles; in my opinion, both are very much and very clearly cultural works, and should be explicitly referenced.<br />
<br />
:: That the title of the definition itself is not quite catchy may not be such a bad thing -- we will not attempt to prescribe that you have to call free cultural works by that exact phrase. Instead, what I would like to do is to explicitly reference other phrases which have similar meanings, such as "free content" and "open knowledge".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: I understand you want to put Lessig, RMS and others on our side, but I think we shouldn't care. We have to do this work because FSF and CC refused to take position in the first place, so we are the ones setting a standard.<br />
<br />
::: Anyway, I'm ready to further contribute. But, sincerely, it will be difficult unless things stop being done in private. Regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:06, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: It would be fine if there had been offline discussion, provided that details were posted to the wiki here so that we could also see it, at the time or after the fact. Indeed, you have a wiki, so one might ask why the discussion was not carried out through the wiki, which would seem designed for the task?<br />
<br />
::: Also, like Antoine, I have a great deal of respect for Richard Stallman and for Lawrence Lessig, who through their writings have between them opened my eyes to freedom. Nevertheless, we should not fear to build on that, and hope to equal or exceed what has passed before. <br />
<br />
::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:48, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" border="1" width="80%"><br />
<tr><td><br />
"Definition of Free Cultural Works" suggests [http://creativecommons.org/ "Creative Commons"] and the associated [http://www.free-culture.cc/ "Free Culture" book]. While these are both brilliant, they suggest a range of licenses most of which are non-free. We need to focus on the free/<em>libre</em> licenses which conform to the definition we are developing. <br />
<br />
Prefer something like "Definition of Libre Works" or "Definition of Free/Libre Resources", etc. - or simply "Libre Definition" - Kim Tucker 30 October 2006.</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
:::: I concur with your comments, and I'm not terribly happy either with the term "Cultural" nor with the term "Works", for various reasons. Libre Definition or Libre Content Definition would be much more acceptable, and I often use the term "Software libre" in preference to "Free software" for similar reasons. So far Libre is not really an English word in itself, but perhaps we should adopt it and make it so anyway, since "Free" in current English has too many connotations of both "Libre" and "Gratis" which are avoided by use of a more precise term.<br />
<br />
:::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 00:55, 31 October 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: ''Libre'' doesn't work for me -- too strange and foreign, too easily to confuse with "Libri" (books). IMHO focusing the "Free Culture" movement on a clearer notion of freedom is a worthy goal in its own right.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:32, 2 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: That's a reasonable point, and is the same reason that "Free software" is the normal expression in English, rather than "Software libre" although that can of course be used as well - and much of our language derives from expressions which were originally "strange and foreign" but became familiar and commonplace because people started using them anyway.<br />
<br />
::::: For our purposes it's unfortunate, due to the confusion in English between "libre" and "gratis" according to context, where "libre" captures our intended meaning. So far the best expression I've seen is "Free Content Definition" as in the present unstable definition, as dropping the "and Expression" was a distinct improvement, and we can explain that we mean ''Free content'' in the sense of liberty not price. --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:09, 5 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::::: Libre disambiguates, while "free" is foreign and confusing to most people on the planet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre#Libre Wikipedia on Libre] indicates that the word "Libre" is used in various [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages Romance languages] while "gratis is common in Germanic and Romance languages. So, at least speakers of those languages would identify with these terms, and no-one would be confused about what is meant. <br />
In various circles, the term FLOSS is being used more and more - probably encouraged by high profile research projects such as [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSWorld] and [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSPols] among others and in articles in [http://www.firstmonday.org First Monday] where the acronym FLOSS is used more than FOSS (the L is significant).<br />
I think it is time (and would be useful) to make "libre" an accepted English word - like so many others from the Romance languages :-). [[User:ktucker|Kim]] 20070118<br />
<br />
== look forward to seeing updates, anyway ==<br />
<br />
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.<br />
<br />
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else ''generalised'', applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's ''Cultural'', and whether or not it's a ''Work'' however that is defined.<br />
<br />
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:<br />
<br />
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.<br />
<br />
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ philosophy] page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.<br />
<br />
:regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I also find the use of the term "god-like" unsavoury. This term might be offensive to parctitioners of certain faiths, particulary if or when the definition is translated to certain languages. I belive that such a definition would be most useful if it written in an as unequivocal a language as possible, while at the same time avoiding a legalistic style. Not that this is an easy task, but avoiding emotionally charged language would help.<br />
<br />
btw, it is the laws, not the countries that create the situation, this is not clear in the current.<br />
"thier content" is metaphoric and emotional, and I'm not clear why its re-use, not plain use.<br />
<br />
I would rewrite this sentence as follows: <br />
<cite> They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. </cite> to<br />
'''Such laws provide authors with extraordianry rights, effectivly granting them an exlusive monopoly as to how the content they create can be used.'''<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:33, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Added "freedom to use" to the preamble ==<br />
<br />
As it was the preamble was not consistent with subsequent sections; please amend and re-edit as may be necessary.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:42, 26 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== (re)distribute v. communicate ==<br />
<br />
When we talk about information distribution esseantially equals communication. After all, the network, and the community, consists of people, and the information that is shared by the community isn't "distributed" it is "communicated".<br />
<br />
I thus argue that<br />
<br />
# the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
# the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works <br />
<br />
should be changed to something along the lines of <br />
<br />
# the freedom to communicate the information or expression to anyone, without restriction<br />
# the freedom to communicate mutated versions of the information or expression<br />
<br />
== Definition and / or manifesto? ==<br />
<br />
The current preamble asserts that (all) cultural works should be free. Is this really to be part of the definition? My guess is that many people are interested in a definition, without necessarily being in support of this claim. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 17:48, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Saying that works of authorship should be free seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement to me. The definition does not advocate abolishing copyright law to ''achieve'' that goal, nor does it set any kind of timetable -- in fact, it doesn't even assert that this goal is achievable for all works of authorship. It merely expresses a clear moral preference of free over non-free works. This moral preference is, indeed, something which I think we should communicate, as the definition is not meant to be merely a sterile legal text, but part of a social movement which agrees with this very basic notion -- but may favor different methods to achieve it, or even disagree upon its ultimate feasibility.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:49, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: It is not my intention to question that the preference of free works should be stated on the site. Still, it is hardly part the definition of a free work. Therefore, I would suggest another page for the moral and philosophy, separated from the definition. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 15:29, 1 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this definition refers, and implicitly applies exclusively to, Digital renditions. I do not know if this is intentional, but it is defiantly not a bad thing. I believe that for a work to be really free it needs to be replicatable (i.e. it should be possible to make a perfect copy, not that it is possible to come up with it again from scratch). This is only practically possible (easy) with text (hence the power of writing) and today with digital media. If there is agreement with this vein of thought I think that it should be made more explicit in the definition. <br />
<br />
This would ideally also lead to making adding a statement that the freedoms required by the definition cannot be technically impaired or limited (e.g. through the use of propriety digital formats) <br />
e.g. an audio clip can be released under CC-BY-SA as an .ogg and as a .wma, but only the .ogg version should be considered free under this definition.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 12:35, 9 March 2007 (CET)</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=2998Talk:Definition/Unstable2007-03-09T11:35:53Z<p>Inkwina: DIgital vs. Analog (non-digital)</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. <br />
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: <br />
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]]. <br />
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:<br />
Users are free to<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:<br />
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; <br />
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share <br />
enhancements or derived works.<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:<br />
<br />
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.<br />
<br />
Users are free to:<br />
<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim] <br />
<br />
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]<br />
<br />
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.<br />
<br />
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).<br />
<br />
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Final name ==<br />
<br />
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Hu?<br />
: First, welcome back...<br />
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?<br />
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)<br />
<br />
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?<br />
<br />
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".<br />
<br />
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.<br />
<br />
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: It was important to us (Mako and myself, the co-initiators of the definition) to label the definition in a way which is agreeable to the important institutions of the Free Culture movement -- FSF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and so on. The discussion on the wiki was absolutely crucial to the entire process. All the names that have been listed here have been mentioned and repeatedly considered. Mako and I have spoken personally to Lessig, RMS, Moglen, and others about this. Now that, after many hours of talking, we have finally found something everyone seems to be able to agree to (more or less enthusiastically), you will have to understand that I am reluctant to second-guess the decision. Certainly, it is always nicer to have a larger scale community process to give a decision legitimacy, but I also believe that process is not an end in itself, and hope we can move foward together. I certainly appreciate (and am well aware of) all the work you have done on this wiki.<br />
<br />
:: Regarding your specific critique: the strength of "Free Cultural Works", in my opinion, is that it references the notion of "Free Culture" without explicitly being called a "Free Culture Definition". It also reduces the "work (labor)" vs. "work (intellectual)" ambiguity in the singular. For example, if I refer to a CD as a "Free Work", the response "So you've worked for free?" is almost inevitable. I do not agree that "Free Cultural" excludes software or scientific articles; in my opinion, both are very much and very clearly cultural works, and should be explicitly referenced.<br />
<br />
:: That the title of the definition itself is not quite catchy may not be such a bad thing -- we will not attempt to prescribe that you have to call free cultural works by that exact phrase. Instead, what I would like to do is to explicitly reference other phrases which have similar meanings, such as "free content" and "open knowledge".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: I understand you want to put Lessig, RMS and others on our side, but I think we shouldn't care. We have to do this work because FSF and CC refused to take position in the first place, so we are the ones setting a standard.<br />
<br />
::: Anyway, I'm ready to further contribute. But, sincerely, it will be difficult unless things stop being done in private. Regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:06, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: It would be fine if there had been offline discussion, provided that details were posted to the wiki here so that we could also see it, at the time or after the fact. Indeed, you have a wiki, so one might ask why the discussion was not carried out through the wiki, which would seem designed for the task?<br />
<br />
::: Also, like Antoine, I have a great deal of respect for Richard Stallman and for Lawrence Lessig, who through their writings have between them opened my eyes to freedom. Nevertheless, we should not fear to build on that, and hope to equal or exceed what has passed before. <br />
<br />
::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:48, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" border="1" width="80%"><br />
<tr><td><br />
"Definition of Free Cultural Works" suggests [http://creativecommons.org/ "Creative Commons"] and the associated [http://www.free-culture.cc/ "Free Culture" book]. While these are both brilliant, they suggest a range of licenses most of which are non-free. We need to focus on the free/<em>libre</em> licenses which conform to the definition we are developing. <br />
<br />
Prefer something like "Definition of Libre Works" or "Definition of Free/Libre Resources", etc. - or simply "Libre Definition" - Kim Tucker 30 October 2006.</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
:::: I concur with your comments, and I'm not terribly happy either with the term "Cultural" nor with the term "Works", for various reasons. Libre Definition or Libre Content Definition would be much more acceptable, and I often use the term "Software libre" in preference to "Free software" for similar reasons. So far Libre is not really an English word in itself, but perhaps we should adopt it and make it so anyway, since "Free" in current English has too many connotations of both "Libre" and "Gratis" which are avoided by use of a more precise term.<br />
<br />
:::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 00:55, 31 October 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: ''Libre'' doesn't work for me -- too strange and foreign, too easily to confuse with "Libri" (books). IMHO focusing the "Free Culture" movement on a clearer notion of freedom is a worthy goal in its own right.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:32, 2 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: That's a reasonable point, and is the same reason that "Free software" is the normal expression in English, rather than "Software libre" although that can of course be used as well - and much of our language derives from expressions which were originally "strange and foreign" but became familiar and commonplace because people started using them anyway.<br />
<br />
::::: For our purposes it's unfortunate, due to the confusion in English between "libre" and "gratis" according to context, where "libre" captures our intended meaning. So far the best expression I've seen is "Free Content Definition" as in the present unstable definition, as dropping the "and Expression" was a distinct improvement, and we can explain that we mean ''Free content'' in the sense of liberty not price. --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:09, 5 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::::: Libre disambiguates, while "free" is foreign and confusing to most people on the planet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre#Libre Wikipedia on Libre] indicates that the word "Libre" is used in various [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages Romance languages] while "gratis is common in Germanic and Romance languages. So, at least speakers of those languages would identify with these terms, and no-one would be confused about what is meant. <br />
In various circles, the term FLOSS is being used more and more - probably encouraged by high profile research projects such as [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSWorld] and [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSPols] among others and in articles in [http://www.firstmonday.org First Monday] where the acronym FLOSS is used more than FOSS (the L is significant).<br />
I think it is time (and would be useful) to make "libre" an accepted English word - like so many others from the Romance languages :-). [[User:ktucker|Kim]] 20070118<br />
<br />
== look forward to seeing updates, anyway ==<br />
<br />
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.<br />
<br />
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else ''generalised'', applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's ''Cultural'', and whether or not it's a ''Work'' however that is defined.<br />
<br />
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:<br />
<br />
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.<br />
<br />
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ philosophy] page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.<br />
<br />
:regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I also find the use of the term "god-like" unsavoury. This term might be offensive to parctitioners of certain faiths, particulary if or when the definition is translated to certain languages. I belive that such a definition would be most useful if it written in an as unequivocal a language as possible, while at the same time avoiding a legalistic style. Not that this is an easy task, but avoiding emotionally charged language would help.<br />
<br />
btw, it is the laws, not the countries that create the situation, this is not clear in the current.<br />
"thier content" is metaphoric and emotional, and I'm not clear why its re-use, not plain use.<br />
<br />
I would rewrite this sentence as follows: <br />
<cite> They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. </cite> to<br />
'''Such laws provide authors with extraordianry rights, effectivly granting them an exlusive monopoly as to how the content they create can be used.'''<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:33, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Added "freedom to use" to the preamble ==<br />
<br />
As it was the preamble was not consistent with subsequent sections; please amend and re-edit as may be necessary.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:42, 26 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== (re)distribute v. communicate ==<br />
<br />
When we talk about information distribution esseantially equals communication. After all, the network, and the community, consists of people, and the information that is shared by the community isn't "distributed" it is "communicated".<br />
<br />
I thus argue that<br />
<br />
# the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
# the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works <br />
<br />
should be changed to something along the lines of <br />
<br />
# the freedom to communicate the information or expression to anyone, without restriction<br />
# the freedom to communicate mutated versions of the information or expression<br />
<br />
== Definition and / or manifesto? ==<br />
<br />
The current preamble asserts that (all) cultural works should be free. Is this really to be part of the definition? My guess is that many people are interested in a definition, without necessarily being in support of this claim. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 17:48, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Saying that works of authorship should be free seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement to me. The definition does not advocate abolishing copyright law to ''achieve'' that goal, nor does it set any kind of timetable -- in fact, it doesn't even assert that this goal is achievable for all works of authorship. It merely expresses a clear moral preference of free over non-free works. This moral preference is, indeed, something which I think we should communicate, as the definition is not meant to be merely a sterile legal text, but part of a social movement which agrees with this very basic notion -- but may favor different methods to achieve it, or even disagree upon its ultimate feasibility.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:49, 28 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: It is not my intention to question that the preference of free works should be stated on the site. Still, it is hardly part the definition of a free work. Therefore, I would suggest another page for the moral and philosophy, separated from the definition. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 15:29, 1 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== DIgital vs. Analog (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this definition refers, and implicitly applies exclusively to, Digital renditions. I do not know if this is intentional, but it is defiantly not a bad thing. I believe that for a work to be really free it needs to be replicatable (i.e. it should be possible to make a perfect copy, not that it is possible to come up with it again from scratch). This is only practically possible (easy) with text (hence the power of writing) and today with digital media. If there is agreement with this vein of thought I think that it should be made more explicit in the definition. <br />
<br />
This would ideally also lead to making adding a statement that the freedoms required by the definition cannot be technically impaired or limited (e.g. through the use of propriety digital formats) <br />
e.g. an audio clip can be released under CC-BY-SA as an .ogg and as a .wma, but only the .ogg version should be considered free under this definition.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 12:35, 9 March 2007 (CET)</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logos_and_buttons&diff=2774Logos and buttons2007-02-22T14:09:08Z<p>Inkwina: /* Examples */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Official logo ==<br />
<br />
The official logo of the Definition of Free Cultural Works was designed by Marc Falzon, and placed in the public domain:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--wikilogo.png]]<br />
<br />
An SVG copy can be found [[Media:Official-logo.svg|here]] (it will not load correctly in Firefox, but has been tested in Inkscape.)<br />
<br />
The logo represents both the diversity of human culture, and the openness and freedom to interact with free cultural works. Please feel free to create derivatives of this logo, and [[Special:Upload|upload them]] to this wiki.<br />
<br />
== Buttons == <br />
<br />
Most importantly, we are trying to create convenient buttons for all [[Licenses|Free Culture Licenses]] which meet the criteria of the [[definition]]. These buttons can be used to "tag" works. Furthermore, instead of linking only to a copy of the license using these buttons, you can link to a page on this site which explains and refers to the license, but also explains our definition of freedom! This will help us to build a community that cares about freedom.<br />
<br />
=== Examples ===<br />
<br />
These are just first drafts of how such buttons could look. If you want to work with these templates, you can download [[Media:Buttons.svg|buttons.svg]] and edit it in Inkscape.<br />
<br />
[[Image:By-sa-button2.png]]<br />
[[Image:By-button.png]]<br />
[[Image:Pd-button.png]]<br />
<br />
Slightly different style:<br />
<br />
[[Image:By-sa-button.png]]<br />
<br />
Again a different style - contributed by Jörg Petri:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Pd2.gif]] [[Image:Pd_1.gif]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Image:GNU FDL.png]] [[Image:GNU FDL alt.png]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:CC-BY-SA.png]] [[Image:FreeBSD.png]]<br />
<br />
These are my attempts at using the above design.<br />
The svg versions ([[Media:CC-BY-SA.svg]], [[Media:GNU FDL.svg]]) do not display well online. They where created using inkscape, and the SVG hasn't been cleaned up. But the [[Media:Blank button.svg|blank]] might can be used to generate more buttons.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:01, 22 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== License description pages ==<br />
<br />
For each license, we will try to create a description page. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/CC-BY-2.5]] - Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5<br />
* [[Licenses/CC-BY-SA-2.5]] - Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 2.5<br />
* [[Licenses/GNU GPL 2]] - GNU General Public License 2<br />
* [[Licenses/GNU FDL 1.2]] - GNU Free Documentation License 1.2<br />
* [[Public domain]]</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=File:FreeBSD.png&diff=2773File:FreeBSD.png2007-02-22T14:07:28Z<p>Inkwina: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logos_and_buttons&diff=2772Logos and buttons2007-02-22T14:01:36Z<p>Inkwina: /* Inkwina's Buttons */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Official logo ==<br />
<br />
The official logo of the Definition of Free Cultural Works was designed by Marc Falzon, and placed in the public domain:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--wikilogo.png]]<br />
<br />
An SVG copy can be found [[Media:Official-logo.svg|here]] (it will not load correctly in Firefox, but has been tested in Inkscape.)<br />
<br />
The logo represents both the diversity of human culture, and the openness and freedom to interact with free cultural works. Please feel free to create derivatives of this logo, and [[Special:Upload|upload them]] to this wiki.<br />
<br />
== Buttons == <br />
<br />
Most importantly, we are trying to create convenient buttons for all [[Licenses|Free Culture Licenses]] which meet the criteria of the [[definition]]. These buttons can be used to "tag" works. Furthermore, instead of linking only to a copy of the license using these buttons, you can link to a page on this site which explains and refers to the license, but also explains our definition of freedom! This will help us to build a community that cares about freedom.<br />
<br />
=== Examples ===<br />
<br />
These are just first drafts of how such buttons could look. If you want to work with these templates, you can download [[Media:Buttons.svg|buttons.svg]] and edit it in Inkscape.<br />
<br />
[[Image:By-sa-button2.png]]<br />
[[Image:By-button.png]]<br />
[[Image:Pd-button.png]]<br />
<br />
Slightly different style:<br />
<br />
[[Image:By-sa-button.png]]<br />
<br />
Again a different style - contributed by Jörg Petri:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Pd2.gif]] [[Image:Pd_1.gif]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Image:GNU FDL.png]] [[Image:GNU FDL alt.png]]<br />
<br />
[[Image:CC-BY-SA.png]]<br />
<br />
These are my attempts at using the above design.<br />
The svg versions ([[Media:CC-BY-SA.svg]], [[Media:GNU FDL.svg]]) do not display well online. They where created using inkscape, and the SVG hasn't been cleaned up. But the [[Media:Blank button.svg|blank]] might can be used to generate more buttons.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:01, 22 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== License description pages ==<br />
<br />
For each license, we will try to create a description page. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
* [[Licenses/CC-BY-2.5]] - Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5<br />
* [[Licenses/CC-BY-SA-2.5]] - Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 2.5<br />
* [[Licenses/GNU GPL 2]] - GNU General Public License 2<br />
* [[Licenses/GNU FDL 1.2]] - GNU Free Documentation License 1.2<br />
* [[Public domain]]</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=File:GNU_FDL.svg&diff=2771File:GNU FDL.svg2007-02-22T13:56:01Z<p>Inkwina: SVG original of GNU_FDL.png</p>
<hr />
<div>SVG original of GNU_FDL.png</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=File:GNU_FDL_alt.png&diff=2770File:GNU FDL alt.png2007-02-22T13:55:21Z<p>Inkwina: Alternative for GNU_FDL.png</p>
<hr />
<div>Alternative for GNU_FDL.png</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=File:GNU_FDL.png&diff=2769File:GNU FDL.png2007-02-22T13:54:54Z<p>Inkwina: Button for GNU FDL based on design by Jörg Petri</p>
<hr />
<div>Button for GNU FDL based on design by Jörg Petri</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=File:CC-BY-SA.svg&diff=2768File:CC-BY-SA.svg2007-02-22T13:54:02Z<p>Inkwina: SVG original of CC-BY-SA.png</p>
<hr />
<div>SVG original of CC-BY-SA.png</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=File:CC-BY-SA.png&diff=2767File:CC-BY-SA.png2007-02-22T13:53:21Z<p>Inkwina: CC-BY-SA Button based on design by Jörg Petri</p>
<hr />
<div>CC-BY-SA Button based on design by Jörg Petri</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=File:Blank_button.svg&diff=2766File:Blank button.svg2007-02-22T13:52:25Z<p>Inkwina: Blank SVG version of design by Jörg Petri</p>
<hr />
<div>Blank SVG version of design by Jörg Petri</div>Inkwinahttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=2639Talk:Definition/Unstable2007-02-17T19:33:54Z<p>Inkwina: /* look forward to seeing updates, anyway */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
<br />
== Pushing to 1.0 ==<br />
<br />
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:<br />
<br />
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.<br />
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.<br />
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.<br />
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.<br />
<br />
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.<br />
<br />
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. <br />
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: <br />
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]]. <br />
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:<br />
Users are free to<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:<br />
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:<br />
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; <br />
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share <br />
enhancements or derived works.<br />
<br />
== Making it shorter ==<br />
<br />
Great work, Erik!<br />
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.<br />
<br />
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:<br />
<br />
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.<br />
<br />
Users are free to:<br />
<br />
(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
<br />
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
<br />
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
<br />
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.<br />
<br />
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]<br />
(Kim)<br />
<br />
== Use of the term "Free" ==<br />
<br />
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.<br />
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim] <br />
<br />
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]<br />
<br />
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.<br />
<br />
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).<br />
<br />
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"<br />
<br />
== Altruism or not ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.<br />
<br />
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== More changes ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.<br />
<br />
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful). <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Alternate preamble ==<br />
<br />
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.<br />
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.<br />
<br />
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".<br />
<br />
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Final name ==<br />
<br />
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Hu?<br />
: First, welcome back...<br />
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?<br />
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)<br />
<br />
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?<br />
<br />
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".<br />
<br />
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.<br />
<br />
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: It was important to us (Mako and myself, the co-initiators of the definition) to label the definition in a way which is agreeable to the important institutions of the Free Culture movement -- FSF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and so on. The discussion on the wiki was absolutely crucial to the entire process. All the names that have been listed here have been mentioned and repeatedly considered. Mako and I have spoken personally to Lessig, RMS, Moglen, and others about this. Now that, after many hours of talking, we have finally found something everyone seems to be able to agree to (more or less enthusiastically), you will have to understand that I am reluctant to second-guess the decision. Certainly, it is always nicer to have a larger scale community process to give a decision legitimacy, but I also believe that process is not an end in itself, and hope we can move foward together. I certainly appreciate (and am well aware of) all the work you have done on this wiki.<br />
<br />
:: Regarding your specific critique: the strength of "Free Cultural Works", in my opinion, is that it references the notion of "Free Culture" without explicitly being called a "Free Culture Definition". It also reduces the "work (labor)" vs. "work (intellectual)" ambiguity in the singular. For example, if I refer to a CD as a "Free Work", the response "So you've worked for free?" is almost inevitable. I do not agree that "Free Cultural" excludes software or scientific articles; in my opinion, both are very much and very clearly cultural works, and should be explicitly referenced.<br />
<br />
:: That the title of the definition itself is not quite catchy may not be such a bad thing -- we will not attempt to prescribe that you have to call free cultural works by that exact phrase. Instead, what I would like to do is to explicitly reference other phrases which have similar meanings, such as "free content" and "open knowledge".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: I understand you want to put Lessig, RMS and others on our side, but I think we shouldn't care. We have to do this work because FSF and CC refused to take position in the first place, so we are the ones setting a standard.<br />
<br />
::: Anyway, I'm ready to further contribute. But, sincerely, it will be difficult unless things stop being done in private. Regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:06, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: It would be fine if there had been offline discussion, provided that details were posted to the wiki here so that we could also see it, at the time or after the fact. Indeed, you have a wiki, so one might ask why the discussion was not carried out through the wiki, which would seem designed for the task?<br />
<br />
::: Also, like Antoine, I have a great deal of respect for Richard Stallman and for Lawrence Lessig, who through their writings have between them opened my eyes to freedom. Nevertheless, we should not fear to build on that, and hope to equal or exceed what has passed before. <br />
<br />
::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:48, 25 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" border="1" width="80%"><br />
<tr><td><br />
"Definition of Free Cultural Works" suggests [http://creativecommons.org/ "Creative Commons"] and the associated [http://www.free-culture.cc/ "Free Culture" book]. While these are both brilliant, they suggest a range of licenses most of which are non-free. We need to focus on the free/<em>libre</em> licenses which conform to the definition we are developing. <br />
<br />
Prefer something like "Definition of Libre Works" or "Definition of Free/Libre Resources", etc. - or simply "Libre Definition" - Kim Tucker 30 October 2006.</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
:::: I concur with your comments, and I'm not terribly happy either with the term "Cultural" nor with the term "Works", for various reasons. Libre Definition or Libre Content Definition would be much more acceptable, and I often use the term "Software libre" in preference to "Free software" for similar reasons. So far Libre is not really an English word in itself, but perhaps we should adopt it and make it so anyway, since "Free" in current English has too many connotations of both "Libre" and "Gratis" which are avoided by use of a more precise term.<br />
<br />
:::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 00:55, 31 October 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: ''Libre'' doesn't work for me -- too strange and foreign, too easily to confuse with "Libri" (books). IMHO focusing the "Free Culture" movement on a clearer notion of freedom is a worthy goal in its own right.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:32, 2 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
::::: That's a reasonable point, and is the same reason that "Free software" is the normal expression in English, rather than "Software libre" although that can of course be used as well - and much of our language derives from expressions which were originally "strange and foreign" but became familiar and commonplace because people started using them anyway.<br />
<br />
::::: For our purposes it's unfortunate, due to the confusion in English between "libre" and "gratis" according to context, where "libre" captures our intended meaning. So far the best expression I've seen is "Free Content Definition" as in the present unstable definition, as dropping the "and Expression" was a distinct improvement, and we can explain that we mean ''Free content'' in the sense of liberty not price. --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:09, 5 November 2006 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::::: Libre disambiguates, while "free" is foreign and confusing to most people on the planet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre#Libre Wikipedia on Libre] indicates that the word "Libre" is used in various [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages Romance languages] while "gratis is common in Germanic and Romance languages. So, at least speakers of those languages would identify with these terms, and no-one would be confused about what is meant. <br />
In various circles, the term FLOSS is being used more and more - probably encouraged by high profile research projects such as [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSWorld] and [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSPols] among others and in articles in [http://www.firstmonday.org First Monday] where the acronym FLOSS is used more than FOSS (the L is significant).<br />
I think it is time (and would be useful) to make "libre" an accepted English word - like so many others from the Romance languages :-). [[User:ktucker|Kim]] 20070118<br />
<br />
== look forward to seeing updates, anyway ==<br />
<br />
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.<br />
<br />
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else ''generalised'', applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's ''Cultural'', and whether or not it's a ''Work'' however that is defined.<br />
<br />
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:<br />
<br />
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.<br />
<br />
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ philosophy] page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.<br />
<br />
:regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I also find the use of the term "god-like" unsavoury. This term might be offensive to parctitioners of certain faiths, particulary if or when the definition is translated to certain languages. I belive that such a definition would be most useful if it written in an as unequivocal a language as possible, while at the same time avoiding a legalistic style. Not that this is an easy task, but avoiding emotionally charged language would help.<br />
<br />
btw, it is the laws, not the countries that create the situation, this is not clear in the current.<br />
"thier content" is metaphoric and emotional, and I'm not clear why its re-use, not plain use.<br />
<br />
I would rewrite this sentence as follows: <br />
<cite> They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. </cite> to<br />
'''Such laws provide authors with extraordianry rights, effectivly granting them an exlusive monopoly as to how the content they create can be used.'''<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:33, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Added "freedom to use" to the preamble ==<br />
<br />
As it was the preamble was not consistent with subsequent sections; please amend and re-edit as may be necessary.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:42, 26 October 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== (re)distribute v. communicate ==<br />
<br />
When we talk about information distribution esseantially equals communication. After all, the network, and the community, consists of people, and the information that is shared by the community isn't "distributed" it is "communicated".<br />
<br />
I thus argue that<br />
<br />
# the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
# the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works <br />
<br />
should be changed to something along the lines of <br />
<br />
# the freedom to communicate the information or expression to anyone, without restriction<br />
# the freedom to communicate mutated versions of the information or expression</div>Inkwina