https://freedomdefined.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=JaroslawLipszyc&feedformat=atomDefinition of Free Cultural Works - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T22:51:37ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.38.4https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2723Definition/Pl2007-02-21T11:15:07Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: box translated</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Wersja stabilna|To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku.}}<br />
<br />
== Podsumowanie ==<br />
<br />
Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób nieograniczony studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura. <br />
<br />
Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* '''Wolność tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* '''Wolność wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[licenses|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności. Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''; zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które cenią sobie podobne wolności w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Definiowanie Licencji Wolnej Kultury ==<br />
<br />
Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie likwidują istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania utworu:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne użycie utworu, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych ("prawa zależne"), takich jak prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, na przykład powodowane względami politycznymi czy religijnymi.<br />
<br />
* '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne korzystanie z informacji zawartych w dziele. Na przykład licencja nie może zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Definiowanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Wolny format:''' Format pliku cyfrowego, w jakim utwór jest udostępniany, nie powinien być obciążony patentami, chyba że z góry dana jest ogólnoświatowa, nieograniczona i nieodowływalna darmowa licencja na korzystanie z opatentowanej technologii. Niewolne formaty są wykorzystywane czasami z powodów praktycznych, jednakże wersja dzieła w wolnym formacie ''musi'' być dostępna, aby dzieło mogło być uznane za wolne. <br />
<br />
* '''Brak technicznych restrykcji:''' Utwór musi być dostępny w takiej formie, by techniczne zabezpieczenia nie ograniczały wymienionych wyżej wolności. <br />
<br />
* '''Brak innych restrykcji i ograniczeń:''' Utwór nie może podlegać takim restrykcjom prawnym (jak patenty, kontrakty, itp.) lub ograniczeniom (jak ochrona prywatności) które wpłynęłyby na wymienione wolności. Utwór może wykorzystywać istniejące w prawie wyjątki od prawa autorskiego (na przykład cytowanie utworów prawnie zastrzeżonych), ale tylko ta część utworu która jest bezwarunkowo wolna stanowi wolne dzieło. <br />
<br />
Innymi słowy, za każdym razem gdy użytkownik dzieła nie może z przyczyn prawnych lub praktycznych wyegzekwować swoich podstawowych wolności, utwór nie może być uznany i nie powinien być nazywany "wolnym".<br />
<br />
== Dowiedz się więcej ==<br />
<br />
* Na stronie [[Licenses|Licencje]] toczy się dyskusja na temat konkretnych licencji i ich zgodności z definicją.<br />
<br />
* Na stronie [[History|Historia]] znajduje się krótki opis rozwoju tej definicji. <br />
<br />
* Strona [[FAQ]] dostarcza odpowiedzi na niektóre pytania.<br />
<br />
* Strona [[Portal:Index]] to spis treści różnych stron dyskusji na temat wolnych dóbr kultury.<br />
<br />
== Numerowanie wersji ==<br />
<br />
Nowe wersje te definicji powinny być publikowane, gdy zostanie osiągnięty konsensus (bezpośrednio lub przez głosowanie, według reguł [[authoring process|procesu autorskiego]]) co do proponowanych zmian. Numeracja wersji powinna trzymać się wzoru 0.x dla wstępnego szkicu definicji, 1.x, 2.x ... dla wydań głównych, x.1, x.2 ... dla uaktualnień. Za uaktulenienia uznawane są takie zmiany tekstu, które nie mają wpływu na zasięg istniejących lub hipotetycznych licencji objętych tą definicją.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2722Definition/Pl2007-02-21T11:13:56Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: translation completed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku.}}<br />
<br />
== Podsumowanie ==<br />
<br />
Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób nieograniczony studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura. <br />
<br />
Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* '''Wolność tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* '''Wolność wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[licenses|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności. Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''; zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które cenią sobie podobne wolności w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Definiowanie Licencji Wolnej Kultury ==<br />
<br />
Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie likwidują istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania utworu:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne użycie utworu, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych ("prawa zależne"), takich jak prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, na przykład powodowane względami politycznymi czy religijnymi.<br />
<br />
* '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne korzystanie z informacji zawartych w dziele. Na przykład licencja nie może zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Definiowanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Wolny format:''' Format pliku cyfrowego, w jakim utwór jest udostępniany, nie powinien być obciążony patentami, chyba że z góry dana jest ogólnoświatowa, nieograniczona i nieodowływalna darmowa licencja na korzystanie z opatentowanej technologii. Niewolne formaty są wykorzystywane czasami z powodów praktycznych, jednakże wersja dzieła w wolnym formacie ''musi'' być dostępna, aby dzieło mogło być uznane za wolne. <br />
<br />
* '''Brak technicznych restrykcji:''' Utwór musi być dostępny w takiej formie, by techniczne zabezpieczenia nie ograniczały wymienionych wyżej wolności. <br />
<br />
* '''Brak innych restrykcji i ograniczeń:''' Utwór nie może podlegać takim restrykcjom prawnym (jak patenty, kontrakty, itp.) lub ograniczeniom (jak ochrona prywatności) które wpłynęłyby na wymienione wolności. Utwór może wykorzystywać istniejące w prawie wyjątki od prawa autorskiego (na przykład cytowanie utworów prawnie zastrzeżonych), ale tylko ta część utworu która jest bezwarunkowo wolna stanowi wolne dzieło. <br />
<br />
Innymi słowy, za każdym razem gdy użytkownik dzieła nie może z przyczyn prawnych lub praktycznych wyegzekwować swoich podstawowych wolności, utwór nie może być uznany i nie powinien być nazywany "wolnym".<br />
<br />
== Dowiedz się więcej ==<br />
<br />
* Na stronie [[Licenses|Licencje]] toczy się dyskusja na temat konkretnych licencji i ich zgodności z definicją.<br />
<br />
* Na stronie [[History|Historia]] znajduje się krótki opis rozwoju tej definicji. <br />
<br />
* Strona [[FAQ]] dostarcza odpowiedzi na niektóre pytania.<br />
<br />
* Strona [[Portal:Index]] to spis treści różnych stron dyskusji na temat wolnych dóbr kultury.<br />
<br />
== Numerowanie wersji ==<br />
<br />
Nowe wersje te definicji powinny być publikowane, gdy zostanie osiągnięty konsensus (bezpośrednio lub przez głosowanie, według reguł [[authoring process|procesu autorskiego]]) co do proponowanych zmian. Numeracja wersji powinna trzymać się wzoru 0.x dla wstępnego szkicu definicji, 1.x, 2.x ... dla wydań głównych, x.1, x.2 ... dla uaktualnień. Za uaktulenienia uznawane są takie zmiany tekstu, które nie mają wpływu na zasięg istniejących lub hipotetycznych licencji objętych tą definicją.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User_talk:83.168.251.26&diff=2668User talk:83.168.251.262007-02-19T10:24:55Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: explanation of undo action</p>
<hr />
<div>cofnalem twoje edycje, bo przetlumaczyles ponownie fragment ktory juz raz zostal przetlumaczony. Poniewaz istniejace tlumaczenie jest spojne terminologicznie z reszta tekstu zostawiam tamto (np. "dopuszczalne ograniczenia"). [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 11:24, 19 February 2007 (CET)</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2667Definition/Pl2007-02-19T10:22:46Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Podsumowanie ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób nieograniczony studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura (tworzona tą drogą?). <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
:: W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
:: Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[licenses|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
:: Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności (praktycznie i bez ryzyka). Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Definiowanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
:: Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
<br />
:: * '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolny format:''' Format pliku cyfrowego, w jakim utwór jest udostępniany, nie powinien być obciążony patentami, chyba że z góry dana jest ogólnoświatowa, nieograniczona i nieodowływalna darmowa licencja na korzystanie z opatentowanej technologii. Niewolne formaty są wykorzystywane czasami z powodów praktycznych, jednakże wersja dzieła w wolnym formacie ''musi'' być dostępna, aby dzieło mogło być uznane za wolne. <br />
<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak technicznych restrykcji:''' Utwór musi być dostępny w takiej formie, by techniczne zabezpieczenia nie ograniczały wymienionych wyżej wolności. <br />
<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak innych restrykcji i ograniczeń:''' Utwór nie może podlegać takim restrykcjom prawnym (jak patenty, kontrakty, itp.) lub ograniczeniom (jak ochrona prywatności) które wpłynęłyby na wymienione wolności. Utwór może wykorzystywać istniejące w prawie wyjątki od prawa autorskiego (na przykład cytowanie utworów prawnie zastrzeżonych), ale tylko ta część utworu która jest bezwarunkowo wolna stanowi wolne dzieło. <br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
:: Innymi słowy, za każdym razem gdy użytkownik dzieła nie może z przyczyn prawnych lub praktycznych wyegzekwować swoich podstawowych wolności, utwór nie może być uznany i nie powinien być nazywany "wolnym".<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
:: == Dowiedz się więcej ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[Licenses|Licencje]] toczy się dyskusja na temat konkretnych licencji i ich zgodności z definicją.<br />
<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[History|Historia]] znajduje się krótki opis rozwoju tej definicji. <br />
<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[FAQ]] dostarcza odpowiedzi na niektóre pytania.<br />
<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[Portal:Index]] to spis treści różnych stron dyskusji na temat wolnych dóbr kultury.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
:: == Numerowanie wersji ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.<br />
<br />
:: Nowe wersje te definicji powinny być publikowane, gdy zostanie osiągnięty konsensus (bezpośrednio lub przez głosowanie, według reguł [[authoring process|procesu autorskiego]]) co do proponowanych zmian. Numeracja wersji powinna trzymać się wzoru 0.x dla wstępnego szkicu definicji, 1.x, 2.x ... dla wydań głównych, x.1, x.2 ... dla uaktualnień. Za uaktulenienia uznawane są takie zmiany tekstu, które nie mają wpływu na zasięg istniejących lub hipotetycznych licencji objętych tą definicją.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2666Definition/Pl2007-02-19T10:22:18Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: Undo revision 2662 by Special:Contributions/83.168.251.26 (User talk:83.168.251.26)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób nieograniczony studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura (tworzona tą drogą?). <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
:: W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
:: Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[licenses|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
:: Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności (praktycznie i bez ryzyka). Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Definiowanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
:: Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
<br />
:: * '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolny format:''' Format pliku cyfrowego, w jakim utwór jest udostępniany, nie powinien być obciążony patentami, chyba że z góry dana jest ogólnoświatowa, nieograniczona i nieodowływalna darmowa licencja na korzystanie z opatentowanej technologii. Niewolne formaty są wykorzystywane czasami z powodów praktycznych, jednakże wersja dzieła w wolnym formacie ''musi'' być dostępna, aby dzieło mogło być uznane za wolne. <br />
<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak technicznych restrykcji:''' Utwór musi być dostępny w takiej formie, by techniczne zabezpieczenia nie ograniczały wymienionych wyżej wolności. <br />
<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak innych restrykcji i ograniczeń:''' Utwór nie może podlegać takim restrykcjom prawnym (jak patenty, kontrakty, itp.) lub ograniczeniom (jak ochrona prywatności) które wpłynęłyby na wymienione wolności. Utwór może wykorzystywać istniejące w prawie wyjątki od prawa autorskiego (na przykład cytowanie utworów prawnie zastrzeżonych), ale tylko ta część utworu która jest bezwarunkowo wolna stanowi wolne dzieło. <br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
:: Innymi słowy, za każdym razem gdy użytkownik dzieła nie może z przyczyn prawnych lub praktycznych wyegzekwować swoich podstawowych wolności, utwór nie może być uznany i nie powinien być nazywany "wolnym".<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
:: == Dowiedz się więcej ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[Licenses|Licencje]] toczy się dyskusja na temat konkretnych licencji i ich zgodności z definicją.<br />
<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[History|Historia]] znajduje się krótki opis rozwoju tej definicji. <br />
<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[FAQ]] dostarcza odpowiedzi na niektóre pytania.<br />
<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[Portal:Index]] to spis treści różnych stron dyskusji na temat wolnych dóbr kultury.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
:: == Numerowanie wersji ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.<br />
<br />
:: Nowe wersje te definicji powinny być publikowane, gdy zostanie osiągnięty konsensus (bezpośrednio lub przez głosowanie, według reguł [[authoring process|procesu autorskiego]]) co do proponowanych zmian. Numeracja wersji powinna trzymać się wzoru 0.x dla wstępnego szkicu definicji, 1.x, 2.x ... dla wydań głównych, x.1, x.2 ... dla uaktualnień. Za uaktulenienia uznawane są takie zmiany tekstu, które nie mają wpływu na zasięg istniejących lub hipotetycznych licencji objętych tą definicją.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2665Definition/Pl2007-02-19T10:21:00Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: Undo revision 2663 by Special:Contributions/83.168.251.26 (User talk:83.168.251.26)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
Ten dokument definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła lub przejawy które mogą być dowolnie studiowane, stosowane, kopiowane i modyfikowane, przez kogokolwiek na dowolny użytek. Opisuje także niektóre zezwolenia które respektują albo chronią te podstawowe prawa.<br />
Definicja rozróżnia "Wolne prace" i "Licencje/Wolne Licencje" które mogą być legalnie użyte dla chronienia statusu wolnego dzieła/pracy. Definicja sama w sobie nie jest licencją, jest narzędziem do stwierdzecznia czy dzieło/praca albo licencja powinna być uważana za wolną.<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura (tworzona tą drogą?). <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
:: W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
:: Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[licenses|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
:: Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności (praktycznie i bez ryzyka). Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Definiowanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
:: Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
<br />
:: * '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolny format:''' Format pliku cyfrowego, w jakim utwór jest udostępniany, nie powinien być obciążony patentami, chyba że z góry dana jest ogólnoświatowa, nieograniczona i nieodowływalna darmowa licencja na korzystanie z opatentowanej technologii. Niewolne formaty są wykorzystywane czasami z powodów praktycznych, jednakże wersja dzieła w wolnym formacie ''musi'' być dostępna, aby dzieło mogło być uznane za wolne. <br />
<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak technicznych restrykcji:''' Utwór musi być dostępny w takiej formie, by techniczne zabezpieczenia nie ograniczały wymienionych wyżej wolności. <br />
<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak innych restrykcji i ograniczeń:''' Utwór nie może podlegać takim restrykcjom prawnym (jak patenty, kontrakty, itp.) lub ograniczeniom (jak ochrona prywatności) które wpłynęłyby na wymienione wolności. Utwór może wykorzystywać istniejące w prawie wyjątki od prawa autorskiego (na przykład cytowanie utworów prawnie zastrzeżonych), ale tylko ta część utworu która jest bezwarunkowo wolna stanowi wolne dzieło. <br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
:: Innymi słowy, za każdym razem gdy użytkownik dzieła nie może z przyczyn prawnych lub praktycznych wyegzekwować swoich podstawowych wolności, utwór nie może być uznany i nie powinien być nazywany "wolnym".<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
:: == Dowiedz się więcej ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[Licenses|Licencje]] toczy się dyskusja na temat konkretnych licencji i ich zgodności z definicją.<br />
<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[History|Historia]] znajduje się krótki opis rozwoju tej definicji. <br />
<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[FAQ]] dostarcza odpowiedzi na niektóre pytania.<br />
<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[Portal:Index]] to spis treści różnych stron dyskusji na temat wolnych dóbr kultury.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
:: == Numerowanie wersji ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.<br />
<br />
:: Nowe wersje te definicji powinny być publikowane, gdy zostanie osiągnięty konsensus (bezpośrednio lub przez głosowanie, według reguł [[authoring process|procesu autorskiego]]) co do proponowanych zmian. Numeracja wersji powinna trzymać się wzoru 0.x dla wstępnego szkicu definicji, 1.x, 2.x ... dla wydań głównych, x.1, x.2 ... dla uaktualnień. Za uaktulenienia uznawane są takie zmiany tekstu, które nie mają wpływu na zasięg istniejących lub hipotetycznych licencji objętych tą definicją.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2613Definition/Pl2007-02-16T12:13:44Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Versioning */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób nieograniczony studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura (tworzona tą drogą?). <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
:: W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
:: Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[licenses|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
:: Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności (praktycznie i bez ryzyka). Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Definiowanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
:: Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
<br />
:: * '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolny format:''' Format pliku cyfrowego, w jakim utwór jest udostępniany, nie powinien być obciążony patentami, chyba że z góry dana jest ogólnoświatowa, nieograniczona i nieodowływalna darmowa licencja na korzystanie z opatentowanej technologii. Niewolne formaty są wykorzystywane czasami z powodów praktycznych, jednakże wersja dzieła w wolnym formacie ''musi'' być dostępna, aby dzieło mogło być uznane za wolne. <br />
<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak technicznych restrykcji:''' Utwór musi być dostępny w takiej formie, by techniczne zabezpieczenia nie ograniczały wymienionych wyżej wolności. <br />
<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak innych restrykcji i ograniczeń:''' Utwór nie może podlegać takim restrykcjom prawnym (jak patenty, kontrakty, itp.) lub ograniczeniom (jak ochrona prywatności) które wpłynęłyby na wymienione wolności. Utwór może wykorzystywać istniejące w prawie wyjątki od prawa autorskiego (na przykład cytowanie utworów prawnie zastrzeżonych), ale tylko ta część utworu która jest bezwarunkowo wolna stanowi wolne dzieło. <br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
:: Innymi słowy, za każdym razem gdy użytkownik dzieła nie może z przyczyn prawnych lub praktycznych wyegzekwować swoich podstawowych wolności, utwór nie może być uznany i nie powinien być nazywany "wolnym".<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
:: == Dowiedz się więcej ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[Licenses|Licencje]] toczy się dyskusja na temat konkretnych licencji i ich zgodności z definicją.<br />
<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[History|Historia]] znajduje się krótki opis rozwoju tej definicji. <br />
<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[FAQ]] dostarcza odpowiedzi na niektóre pytania.<br />
<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[Portal:Index]] to spis treści różnych stron dyskusji na temat wolnych dóbr kultury.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
:: == Numerowanie wersji ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.<br />
<br />
:: Nowe wersje te definicji powinny być publikowane, gdy zostanie osiągnięty konsensus (bezpośrednio lub przez głosowanie, według reguł [[authoring process|procesu autorskiego]]) co do proponowanych zmian. Numeracja wersji powinna trzymać się wzoru 0.x dla wstępnego szkicu definicji, 1.x, 2.x ... dla wydań głównych, x.1, x.2 ... dla uaktualnień. Za uaktulenienia uznawane są takie zmiany tekstu, które nie mają wpływu na zasięg istniejących lub hipotetycznych licencji objętych tą definicją.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2612Definition/Pl2007-02-16T12:06:57Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Defining Free Cultural Works */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób nieograniczony studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura (tworzona tą drogą?). <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
:: W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
:: Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[licenses|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
:: Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności (praktycznie i bez ryzyka). Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Definiowanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
:: Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
<br />
:: * '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolny format:''' Format pliku cyfrowego, w jakim utwór jest udostępniany, nie powinien być obciążony patentami, chyba że z góry dana jest ogólnoświatowa, nieograniczona i nieodowływalna darmowa licencja na korzystanie z opatentowanej technologii. Niewolne formaty są wykorzystywane czasami z powodów praktycznych, jednakże wersja dzieła w wolnym formacie ''musi'' być dostępna, aby dzieło mogło być uznane za wolne. <br />
<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak technicznych restrykcji:''' Utwór musi być dostępny w takiej formie, by techniczne zabezpieczenia nie ograniczały wymienionych wyżej wolności. <br />
<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak innych restrykcji i ograniczeń:''' Utwór nie może podlegać takim restrykcjom prawnym (jak patenty, kontrakty, itp.) lub ograniczeniom (jak ochrona prywatności) które wpłynęłyby na wymienione wolności. Utwór może wykorzystywać istniejące w prawie wyjątki od prawa autorskiego (na przykład cytowanie utworów prawnie zastrzeżonych), ale tylko ta część utworu która jest bezwarunkowo wolna stanowi wolne dzieło. <br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
:: Innymi słowy, za każdym razem gdy użytkownik dzieła nie może z przyczyn prawnych lub praktycznych wyegzekwować swoich podstawowych wolności, utwór nie może być uznany i nie powinien być nazywany "wolnym".<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
:: == Dowiedz się więcej ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[Licenses|Licencje]] toczy się dyskusja na temat konkretnych licencji i ich zgodności z definicją.<br />
<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[History|Historia]] znajduje się krótki opis rozwoju tej definicji. <br />
<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[FAQ]] dostarcza odpowiedzi na niektóre pytania.<br />
<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[Portal:Index]] to spis treści różnych stron dyskusji na temat wolnych dóbr kultury.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2611Definition/Pl2007-02-16T12:05:54Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Defining Free Cultural Works */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób nieograniczony studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura (tworzona tą drogą?). <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
:: W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
:: Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[licenses|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
:: Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności (praktycznie i bez ryzyka). Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
:: Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
<br />
:: * '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolny format:''' Format pliku cyfrowego, w jakim utwór jest udostępniany, nie powinien być obciążony patentami, chyba że z góry dana jest ogólnoświatowa, nieograniczona i nieodowływalna darmowa licencja na korzystanie z opatentowanej technologii. Niewolne formaty są wykorzystywane czasami z powodów praktycznych, jednakże wersja dzieła w wolnym formacie ''musi'' być dostępna, aby dzieło mogło być uznane za wolne. <br />
<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak technicznych restrykcji:''' Utwór musi być dostępny w takiej formie, by techniczne zabezpieczenia nie ograniczały wymienionych wyżej wolności. <br />
<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak innych restrykcji i ograniczeń:''' Utwór nie może podlegać takim restrykcjom prawnym (jak patenty, kontrakty, itp.) lub ograniczeniom (jak ochrona prywatności) które wpłynęłyby na wymienione wolności. Utwór może wykorzystywać istniejące w prawie wyjątki od prawa autorskiego (na przykład cytowanie utworów prawnie zastrzeżonych), ale tylko ta część utworu która jest bezwarunkowo wolna stanowi wolne dzieło. <br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
:: Innymi słowy, za każdym razem gdy użytkownik dzieła nie może z przyczyn prawnych lub praktycznych wyegzekwować swoich podstawowych wolności, utwór nie może być uznany i nie powinien być nazywany "wolnym".<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
:: == Dowiedz się więcej ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[Licenses|Licencje]] toczy się dyskusja na temat konkretnych licencji i ich zgodności z definicją.<br />
<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[History|Historia]] znajduje się krótki opis rozwoju tej definicji. <br />
<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[FAQ]] dostarcza odpowiedzi na niektóre pytania.<br />
<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[Portal:Index]] to spis treści różnych stron dyskusji na temat wolnych dóbr kultury.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2610Definition/Pl2007-02-16T11:52:48Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Further reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób nieograniczony studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura (tworzona tą drogą?). <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
:: W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
:: Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[licenses|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
:: Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności (praktycznie i bez ryzyka). Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
:: Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
<br />
:: * '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolny format:''' Format pliku cyfrowego, w jakim utwór jest udostępniany, nie powinien być obciążony patentami, chyba że z góry dana jest ogólnoświatowa, nieograniczona i nieodowływalna darmowa licencja na korzystanie z opatentowanej technologii. Niewolne formaty są wykorzystywane czasami z powodów praktycznych, jednakże wersja dzieła w wolnym formacie ''musi'' być dostępna, aby dzieło mogło być uznane za wolne. <br />
<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak technicznych ograniczeń:''' Utwór musi być dostępny w takiej formie, by techniczne zabezpieczenia nie ograniczały wymienionych wyżej wolności. <br />
<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
:: *'''Brak innych ograniczeń lub ??? <br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
:: == Dowiedz się więcej ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[Licenses|Licencje]] toczy się dyskusja na temat konkretnych licencji i ich zgodności z definicją.<br />
<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
<br />
:: * Na stronie [[History|Historia]] znajduje się krótki opis rozwoju tej definicji. <br />
<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[FAQ]] dostarcza odpowiedzi na niektóre pytania.<br />
<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
:: * Strona [[Portal:Index]] to spis treści różnych stron dyskusji na temat wolnych dóbr kultury.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2602Definition/Pl2007-02-16T09:53:58Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób nieograniczony studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura (tworzona tą drogą?). <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
:: W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
:: Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[licenses|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
:: Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności (praktycznie i bez ryzyka). Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
:: Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
<br />
:: * '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolny format:''' Format pliku cyfrowego, w jakim utwór jest udostępniany, nie powinien być obciążony patentami, chyba że z góry dana jest ogólnoświatowa, nieograniczona i nieodowływalna darmowa licencja na korzystanie z opatentowanej technologii. Niewolne formaty są wykorzystywane czasami z powodów praktycznych, jednakże wersja dzieła w wolnym formacie ''musi'' być dostępna, aby dzieło mogło być uznane za wolne. <br />
<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak technicznych ograniczeń:''' Utwór musi być dostępny w takiej formie, by techniczne zabezpieczenia nie ograniczały wymienionych wyżej wolności. <br />
<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
:: *'''Brak innych ograniczeń lub ??? <br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2595Definition/Pl2007-02-15T23:08:35Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Defining Free Cultural Works */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób nieograniczony studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura (tworzona tą drogą?). <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
:: W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
:: Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[w:license|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
:: Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności (praktycznie i bez ryzyka). Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
:: Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
<br />
:: * '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Otwarty standard:''' <br />
<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Brak technicznych ???:''' Utwór musi być dostępny w formie środki techniczne nie ograniczają wymienionych wyżej wolności. <br />
<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2594Definition/Pl2007-02-15T23:03:57Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Preamble */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób nieograniczony studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura (tworzona tą drogą?). <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
:: W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
:: Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[w:license|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
:: Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności (praktycznie i bez ryzyka). Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
:: Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
<br />
:: * '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2593Definition/Pl2007-02-15T23:02:42Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Preamble */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób nieograniczony studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura (tworzona tą drogą?). <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
:: W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
:: Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[w:license|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
:: Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności (praktycznie i bez ryzyka). Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
:: Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
<br />
:: * '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2592Definition/Pl2007-02-15T22:59:08Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Defining Free Cultural Works */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dobra Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób nieograniczony studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliają coraz większej części ludzkości ''tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję oraz dostęp do'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Powstało wiele społeczności, wykorzystujących te możliwości w tworzeniu mnóstwa powszechnie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działania czy profesjonalnego bądź amatorskiego charakteru swoich prac, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatsza staje się kultura (tworzona tą drogą?). <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: '''Wolność wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do tworzenia i rozpowszechniania kopii (Swobodne tworzenie i rozpowszechnianie kopii)''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do wprowadzania zmian i poprawek (Swobodne modyfikowanie)''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
:: W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Monopol ten powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, nie gwarantując nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości, wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
:: Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[w:license|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
:: Ważnym jest by każda praca, która uznawana jest za wolną, faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności (praktycznie i bez ryzyka). Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia nałożone na użytkowanie lub dystrybucję dzieła ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek uznania autorstwa, symetrycznej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
:: Utwór ''musi'' być objęty Licencją Wolnej Kultury aby mógł być uznany za wolny, lub jego status prawny ''musi'' zapewniać te same ''podstawowe swobody'', wyliczone powyżej. Nie jest to jednak warunek wystarczający. Dany utwór może nie być wolny ze względu na inne sposoby ograniczania podstawowych swobód. Tak więc utwór, aby był uznany za wolny, musi spełniać następujące dodatkowe warunki:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
<br />
:: * '''Dostępność danych źródłowych:''' O ile ostateczny utwór został stworzony poprzez kompilację lub przetworzenie pliku źródłowego lub szeregu plików źródłowych, o tyle wszystie dane źródłowe powinny być dostępne wraz z utworem i na tych samych zasadach co utwór. Może to być na przykład partytura utworu muzycznego, modele wykorzystane w scenie 3D, dane z publikacji naukowej, kod źródłowy do aplikacji komputerowej, lub dowolna informacja tego rodzaju.<br />
<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Pl&diff=2581Talk:Definition/Pl2007-02-15T14:13:48Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: wolność czy prawo???</p>
<hr />
<div>Linki chyba musza prowadzic do angielskich stron - nie wydaje mi sie ze uda sie nam przetlumaczyc zasoby calego wiki... [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:10, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Niespójność ==<br />
<br />
Brak spójności "Identifying" ze wstępem - w tym drugim nie została podjęta decyzja, czy to dzieła, czy dobra czy whatever, natomiast w "Identifying" nie ma już tych wątpliwości.<br />
: Jak sie podejmie decyzje to zmiana terminologii w calym dokumencie nie bedzie problemem. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 00:59, 15 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
<br />
=="Wolność czegoś" czy "Prawo do czegoś"?==<br />
Obecnie mamy obie te konwencje wymieszane, a musimy się na jedną zdecydować. W tekstach Stallmana tlumaczylem "Freedom to.." jako "Prawo do..." (porównaj: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.pl.html) . Jakieś argumenty za jednym bądź drugim rozwiązaniem? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 15:13, 15 February 2007 (CET)</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2563Definition/Pl2007-02-15T12:07:06Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Preamble */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dzieła (Dobra? Treści?) Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób swobodny studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliwiły rosnącej części ludzkości ''dostęp do, tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Wiele społeczności powstało, by wykorzystać te możliwości i tworzyć mnóstwo społecznie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działalności czy amatorskiego lub profesjonalnego statusu, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatszą staje się kultura. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: '''Prawo do wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do tworzenie i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
:: W większości krajów wolności te nie są popierane, ale tłumione poprzez prawo zazwyczaj zwane ''prawem autorskim''. Uważa ono autorów za podobnych Bogu stwórców i daje im ono wyłączny monopol na użytkowanie "ich własności". Ten monopol powstrzymuje rozwój kultury, a przy tym nie gwarantuje nawet ekonomicznych zysków z twórczości wspierając raczej modele biznesowe najpotężniejszych firm wydawniczych. <br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
:: Pomimo tych praw autorzy mogą uczynić swoje prace wolnymi poprzez mechanizmy prawne: wybranie jednej z wielu [[w:license|wolnych licencji]]. Taki wybór nie oznacza bynajmniej, że autor traci wszystkie swoje prawa. W ten sposób udziela on wymienionych wyżej wolności wszystkim innym. <br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
:: Ważnym jest, by każda praca która uznawana jest za wolną faktycznie gwarantowała wszystkie wspomniane wolności praktycznie i bez ryzyka. Dlatego tutaj precyzujemy dokładnie '''definicję wolności''' dla licencji i dzieł autorskich.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia użytkowania lub dystrybucji ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek rozpoznania autorstwa (?), równoprawnej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]]<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2555Definition/Pl2007-02-15T09:16:50Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Defining Free Culture Licenses */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dzieła (Dobra? Treści?) Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób swobodny studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliwiły rosnącej części ludzkości ''dostęp do, tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Wiele społeczności powstało, by wykorzystać te możliwości i tworzyć mnóstwo społecznie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działalności czy amatorskiego lub profesjonalnego statusu, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatszą staje się kultura. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: '''Prawo do wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do tworzenie i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
:: Licencje to instrumenty prawne dzięki którym posiadacz pewnych praw może je przenieść na inne podmioty. Wolne Licencje nie zabierają żadnych praw -- są zawsze dobrowolne, a gdy je zaakceptujemy dają nam one prawa których nie daje nam prawo autorskie. Wolne licencje nigdy nie ograniczają ani nie ujmują (?) istniejących wyjątków od prawa autorskiego. <br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
:: === Podstawowe wolności ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
:: Aby być uznaną za "wolną" w myśl przedstawianej tu definicji, licencja musi respektować wszystkie poniższe rodzaje wolności bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność wykorzystywania i odtwarzania dobra:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolny użytek dobra, zarówno w zakresie prywatnym, jak i publicznym. Tam, gdzie ma to swoje zastosowanie, licencja winna obejmować również dostępność wszelkich praw pochodnych, takich jak przykładowo prawo do wykonywania czy interpretowania danego utworu. Nie mogą istnieć od tego żadne wyjątki, takie jak na przykład względy polityczne lub religijne.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność poznawania dzieła oraz stosowania zawartych w nim informacji:''' Licencja musi zezwalać na dowolne używanie informacji zawartych w dziele. Licencja nie może przykładowo zabraniać tzw. inżynierii wstecznej.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność redystrybucji:''' Kopie dzieła mogą być sprzedawane, wymieniane lub rozdawane za darmo, jako część większego dzieła bądź kolekcji lub też jako niezależna całość. Ilość informacji dopuszczonej do kopiowania nie może podlegać ograniczeniom. Podobnie jakimkolwiek ograniczeniom nie może podlegać to, kto wykonuje kopie ani to dokąd informacje zostają skopiowane.<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
:: * '''Wolność dystrybucji dzieł pochodnych:''' W celu umożliwienia każdemu ulepszania dzieła, licencja nie może ograniczać wolności dystrybuowania zmodyfikowanych wersji (bądź dla dzieł mających swoją fizyczną postać, dzieł będących w jakikolwiek sposób ich pochodną), niezależnie od zawartości oraz celu sporządzania tych modyfikacji. Jednakże mogą istnieć pewne ograniczenia mające na celu ochronę owych podstawowych wolności lub stwierdzenia wkładu w dzieło jego poprzednich autorów (zobacz poniżej).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
:: === Dopuszczalne ograniczenia ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
:: Nie wszystkie ograniczenia użytkowania lub dystrybucji ograniczają podstawowe wolności. W szczególności obowiązek rozpoznania autorstwa (?), równoprawnej współpracy (np. "copyleft"), czy nakaz ochrony podstawowych wolności uważane są za [[permissible restrictions|dopuszczalne ograniczenia]]<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2544Definition/Pl2007-02-15T00:58:47Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Preamble */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dzieła (Dobra? Treści?) Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób swobodny studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliwiły rosnącej części ludzkości ''dostęp do, tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Wiele społeczności powstało, by wykorzystać te możliwości i tworzyć mnóstwo społecznie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działalności czy amatorskiego lub profesjonalnego statusu, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatszą staje się kultura. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: '''Prawo do wykorzystywania''' utworu i czerpania korzyści z jego używania<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do tworzenie i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
:: Te wolności powinny być dane każdemu, wszędzie i zawsze. Nie powinny być ograniczone poprzez kontekst w którym utwór jest wykorzystywany. Kreatywność jest sztuką wykorzystywania istniejących zasobów w sposób, który nie był pomyślany nigdy wcześniej. <br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi być oparta o jedną z Wolnych Licencji albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2542Definition/Pl2007-02-15T00:26:28Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Preamble */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dzieła (Dobra? Treści?) Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób swobodny studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliwiły rosnącej części ludzkości ''dostęp do, tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Wiele społeczności powstało, by wykorzystać te możliwości i tworzyć mnóstwo społecznie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działalności czy amatorskiego lub profesjonalnego statusu, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatszą staje się kultura. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a poprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
<br />
:: '''Prawo do wykorzystywania''' utworu i ??????????????????????<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do poznawania''' utworu i stosowania nabytej w ten sposób wiedzy <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do tworzenie i rozpowszechniania kopii''' informacji lub utworu, w całości lub we fragmentach. <br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
:: * '''Prawo do wprowadzania zmian i poprawek''', i rozpowszechniania utworów pochodnych<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi korzystać z jednej z Wolnych [[Licenses|Licencji]] albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2541Definition/Pl2007-02-15T00:14:49Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Preamble */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dzieła (Dobra? Treści?) Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób swobodny studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliwiły rosnącej części ludzkości ''dostęp do, tworzenie, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję'' różnego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Wiele społeczności powstało, by wykorzystać te możliwości i tworzyć mnóstwo społecznie użytecznych dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
:: Większość autorów, niezależnie od pola działalności czy amatorskiego lub profesjonalnego statusu, jest żywotnie zainteresowana ekosystemem w którym prace mogą być popularyzowane, wykorzystywane i rozwijane w twórczy sposób. Im łatwiej jest wykorzystywać i rozwijać dzieła, tym bogatszą staje się kultura. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
<br />
:: Aby zagwarantować płynne działanie tego ekosystemu, dzieła powinny być ''wolne'', a polprzez ''wolność'' rozumiemy:<br />
<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi korzystać z jednej z Wolnych [[Licenses|Licencji]] albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Pl&diff=2540Talk:Definition/Pl2007-02-14T23:59:16Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Niespójność */</p>
<hr />
<div>Linki chyba musza prowadzic do angielskich stron - nie wydaje mi sie ze uda sie nam przetlumaczyc zasoby calego wiki... [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:10, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Niespójność ==<br />
<br />
Brak spójności "Identifying" ze wstępem - w tym drugim nie została podjęta decyzja, czy to dzieła, czy dobra czy whatever, natomiast w "Identifying" nie ma już tych wątpliwości.<br />
: Jak sie podejmie decyzje to zmiana terminologii w calym dokumencie nie bedzie problemem. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 00:59, 15 February 2007 (CET)</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2533Definition/Pl2007-02-14T21:19:48Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Identifying Free Cultural Works */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dzieła (Dobra? Treści?) Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób swobodny studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliwiły rosnącej części ludzkości ''dostęp, twórczość, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję'' róznego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Wiele społeczności powstało, by wykorzystać te możliwości i tworzyć mnóstwo społecznie (re-usable?) dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury'', i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi korzystać z jednej z Wolnych [[Licenses|Licencji]] albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2531Definition/Pl2007-02-14T21:17:04Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Summary */ typo</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dzieła (Dobra? Treści?) Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób swobodny studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliwiły rosnącej części ludzkości ''dostęp, twórczość, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję'' róznego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Wiele społeczności powstało, by wykorzystać te możliwości i tworzyć mnóstwo społecznie (re-usable?) dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury", i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi korzystać z jednej z Wolnych [[Licenses|Licencji]] albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2529Definition/Pl2007-02-14T21:16:31Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Summary */ typo</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dzieła (Dobra? Treści?) Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób swobodny studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliwiły rosnącej części ludzkości ''dostęp, twórczość, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję'' róznego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Wiele społeczności powstało, by wykorzystać te możliwości i tworzyć mnóstwo społecznie (re-usable?) dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury", i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi korzystać z jednej z Wolnych [[Licenses|Licencji]] albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2528Definition/Pl2007-02-14T21:15:41Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: preamble translation in progress</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dzieła (Dobra? Treści?) Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory, które mogą być w sposób swobodny studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia, które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróżnia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licences|wolne licencje]]'', które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest pomocna przy określaniu, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną".<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
:: Społeczne i technologiczne zmiany umożliwiły rosnącej części ludzkości ''dostęp, twórczość, modyfikowanie, publikację i dystrybucję'' róznego rodzaju utworów - dzieł sztuki, literatury, materiałów edukacyjnych i naukowych, oprogramowania, artykułów - w skrócie ''wszystkiego co może być przedstawione w formie cyfrowej''. Wiele społeczności powstało, by wykorzystać te możliwości i tworzyć mnóstwo społecznie (re-usable?) dzieł. <br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury", i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi korzystać z jednej z Wolnych [[Licenses|Licencji]] albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Pl&diff=2527Talk:Definition/Pl2007-02-14T21:10:02Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: polskie tlumaczenie - co z linkami?</p>
<hr />
<div>Linki chyba musza prowadzic do angielskich stron - nie wydaje mi sie ze uda sie nam przetlumaczyc zasoby calego wiki... [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:10, 14 February 2007 (CET)</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:JaroslawLipszyc&diff=2515User:JaroslawLipszyc2007-02-14T14:46:47Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: </p>
<hr />
<div>My name is Jaroslaw Lipszyc, i live in Warszawa (Warsaw, Poland). I'm a journalist turned activist. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Jarek.jpg]] <br />
<br />
My email: jaroslaw.lipszyc@wolnepodreczniki.pl<br />
my jabber ID rekrutacja@jabber.org.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2514Definition/Pl2007-02-14T14:27:00Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Identifying Free Cultural Works */ translated</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dzieła (Dobra?) Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory które mogą być w sposób wolny studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia (???) które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróznia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'' które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest narzędziem do określenia, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną". <br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
:: == Rozpoznawanie Wolnych Dóbr Kultury ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: To jest ''Definicja Wolnych Dóbr Kultury", i zachęcamy do zamieszczenia przy opisywaniu swojego utworu noty "Ta praca dostępna jest na wolnej licencji według ''Definicji Wolnych Dóbr Kultury''." Jeśli nie podoba ci się termin "Wolne Dobra Kultury" możesz użyć też zwyczajowego "Wolne treści" lub odnieść się do jednego z innych [[Existing Movements|istniejących ruchów]] które wyrażają podobne wolności (?) w specyficznym kontekście. Zachęcamy także do korzystania z [[logos and buttons|logo i banerów Wolnych Dóbr Kultury]], które są dostępne w domenie publicznej. <br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
:: Zwróć uwagę, że taka adnotacja nie powoduje automatycznie określenia praw opisanych w definicji. Aby twoja praca była wolnodostępna musi korzystać z jednej z Wolnych [[Licenses|Licencji]] albo znajdować się w domenie publicznej.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
:: Nie zalecamy korzystania z innych terminów do identyfikowania Wolnych Dóbr Kultury jeśli nie zapewniają one klarownej definicji wolności. W szczególności dotyczy to terminów takich jak "Open Access" ("Otwarty dostęp") i "Open content" ("Otwarte utwory").<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2512Definition/Pl2007-02-14T14:16:01Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: summary translated</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dzieła (Dobra?) Kultury" jako dzieła czy utwory które mogą być w sposób wolny studiowane, wykonywane, kopiowane i/lub modyfikowane, przez każdego, w dowolnym celu. Opisuje także szczególne dopuszczalne ograniczenia (???) które strzegą i chronią te podstawowe wolności. Definicja ta rozróznia ''wolne dzieła'' i ''[[licenses|wolne licencje]]'' które mogą być wykorzystywane do prawnej ochrony statusu wolnego dzieła. Definicja sama w sobie ''nie'' jest licencją: jest narzędziem do określenia, czy dany utwór lub licencja może być uznana za "wolną". <br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Pl&diff=2489Definition/Pl2007-02-14T09:29:01Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: first sentences</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}}<br />
<br />
:: To jest stabilna wersja 1.0 definicji. Numer wersji będzie zmieniany w miarę rozwoju definicji. Wersja definicji do edycji po angielsku znajduje się na stronie [[Definition/Unstable]]. Zobacz też strony ze [[authoring process|wskazówkami dla autorów]] i [[translations|tłumaczeniami]] jeśli chcesz dodać wersję w innym języku. <br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
:: == Wstęp ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
<br />
:: Dokument ten definiuje "Wolne Dzieła Kultury" jako dzieła czy <br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
:: == Preambuła ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
<br />
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become. <br />
<br />
To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be '''free''', and by ''freedom'' we mean:<br />
* the '''freedom to use''' the work and enjoy the benefits of using it<br />
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it<br />
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression<br />
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works<br />
<br />
These freedoms should be available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.<br />
<br />
In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named ''copyright laws''. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.<br />
<br />
In spite of those laws, authors can make their works free by choosing among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|free licenses]]. For an author, choosing to put his work under a ''free license'' does not mean that he loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms. This is why we hereafter give a precise '''definition of freedom''' for licenses and for works of authorship.<br />
<br />
== Identifying Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
This is the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'', and when describing your work, we encourage you to make reference to this definition, as in, "This is a freely licensed work, as explained in the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain.<br />
<br />
We discourage you to use other terms to identify Free Cultural Works which do not convey a clear definition of freedom, such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than those of existing copyright laws, or even for works that are just "available on the Web".<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take any rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.<br />
<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and apply the information:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
* '''The freedom to redistribute copies:''' Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.<br />
* '''The freedom to distribute derivative works:''' In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).<br />
<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
<br />
== Defining Free Cultural Works ==<br />
<br />
In order to be considered free, a work ''must'' be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status ''must'' provide the same ''essential freedoms'' enumerated above. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. Indeed, a specific work may be non-free in other ways that restrict the essential freedoms. These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:<br />
<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. <br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy ''must'' be available for the work to be considered free.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.<br />
* '''No other restrictions or limitations:''' The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.<br />
<br />
In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called "free."<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Translations&diff=2487Translations2007-02-14T08:13:16Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: added polish, rearranged alphabetically</p>
<hr />
<div>Translations of the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'' are coordinated here. Translations have to be approved by the [[moderators]] before they will be linked from the official definition. Please help us translate the definition into all world languages!<br />
<br />
To get started, please [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Translations&action=edit edit this page] and add a link to your language if it doesn't exist, in the format of the existing ones below:<br />
<br />
* [[Definition/Fr]] - French<br />
* [[Definition/De]] - German<br />
* [[Definition/It]] - Italian<br />
* [[Definition/Pl]] - Polish<br />
* [[Definition/Pt]] - Portuguese<br />
* [[Definition/Es]] - Spanish<br />
<br />
(For the sake of simplicity, we'll use the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias Wikipedia language codes].)<br />
<br />
Then follow the link and create the definition (or edit/improve it if it already exists). You can copy & paste the original text [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition&action=edit from here]. Be sure to translate stable version 1.0.<br />
<br />
Once you are done, contact one of the [[moderators]] or e-mail Erik at (<tt>eloquence at gmail dot com</tt>).</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logo_contest&diff=2106Logo contest2006-06-08T13:00:55Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* New Creative Commons Logos */</p>
<hr />
<div>We need two separate logos, a "Free Content" logo and a "Free Expression" logo, that can be attached to works covered by licenses which meet the conditions defined in the [[Definition|Free Content and Expression Definition]]. Each of these logos should consist of:<br />
<br />
* a symbol or sign that is the same for both logos (minor variations allowed)<br />
* a label, i.e. "Free Content" or "Free Expression"<br />
<br />
Logos '''must''' have a vector graphics source (SVG preferred), but '''must''' be uploaded in a bitmap format (transparent PNG preferred). A good, free software vector graphics application which can handle SVG and PNG exports is [http://www.inkscape.org/ inkscape]. The dimensions are up to you as long as the images scale well. In order for your logo to be used, the logo itself must be free content with a reduced attribution requirement, but we can work this out with you once we have picked your logo.<br />
<br />
To participate, [[Special:Userlogin|create an account]] and [[Special:Upload|upload your logos]]. A deadline will be announced once we have a better feel for how many submissions to expect. The [[moderators]] act as a jury.<br />
<br />
Why participate? Your logo may end up being used on millions of works large and small, giving you exposition and recognition. You will be fully acknowledged on this website as the artist. We may also announce prizes during the course of the contest.<br />
<br />
Some advice and ideas:<br />
* Don't make it too complex. See the Wikipedia article [[w:logo|logo]] for some information on what makes a good logo.<br />
* Since "Free Expression" is meant to be used primarily for artistic works, it may be a good idea to make this particular logo slightly more playful.<br />
* It's all about works being used freely, merged, copied, changed, and so on. A visual metaphor that reflects this may make the most sense.<br />
<br />
If you are confused by the wiki process, feel free to e-mail Erik at <tt>moeller AT scireview DOT de</tt>, and he will take care of things.<br />
<br />
== New Creative Commons Logos ==<br />
<br />
Please, have a look at new logos proposed for CC. They are not official CC logos (yet) [http://x.narya.net/static/terry/cc_colors.png but may be in a future] [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 14:59, 8 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Current submissions ==<br />
===Swirly===<br />
"Swirly" by Erik Möller, color & b&w, available as SVG. I'm using the text "free culture" for now as a placeholder until we've decided on a final name for the definition. This probably has similarities to lots of existing logos due to its simplicity, but I feel that freedom is best defined visually through simple forms and shapes. The blue and green represent Sky and Earth, respectively, to indicate that this is a global movement; the open shapes are somewhat informed by the copyright "C", which is, in a way, subverted to express fluidity and constant change. The soft pink subtitle is meant to complete the three primary colors, red, green and blue, from which all other colors can be additively created. The shapes are also meant to be somewhat reminiscent of a [[w:bass clef|bass clef]].--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 18:15, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Swirly-logo-black.png|150px|]] [[Image:Swirly-logo-color.png|150px|]]<br />
<br />
===Yin Yang===<br />
"Yin Yang" by Bernhard Schillo. The shape of the logo is one half of the yin and yang symbol. I believe, this is a good basis for this logo, cause it symbolizes contradictions, which generate reality. In this case the "C" (for Culture) coexists with the "uncultured" nature. Or another possible connotation: free culture and not free culture. Human culture of property can't exist without the "seed" of free culture contained in itself and without a strong free culture on the opposition. The forces have to work together. <br />
The Logo also reminds to the Copyright-Logo. But the circle around the "C" is not a circle. The shape indicates, that something is given back. <br />
<br />
The logo should be elaborated if used. These are just my first ideas and drafts. I will think about it again when the discussion about the name is finished. And i hope, my english is understandable :)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_signet.png|Free_culture_logo_signet.png]] <br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_var.png|Free_culture_logo_var.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free Content Logo ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free3.png|Logo|left|thumb]] [[Image:Freex.png|Logo|left|thumb]]<br />
[[Image:glob.png|Logo|left|thumb]]</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logo_contest&diff=2105Logo contest2006-06-08T13:00:23Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* New Creative Commons Logos */</p>
<hr />
<div>We need two separate logos, a "Free Content" logo and a "Free Expression" logo, that can be attached to works covered by licenses which meet the conditions defined in the [[Definition|Free Content and Expression Definition]]. Each of these logos should consist of:<br />
<br />
* a symbol or sign that is the same for both logos (minor variations allowed)<br />
* a label, i.e. "Free Content" or "Free Expression"<br />
<br />
Logos '''must''' have a vector graphics source (SVG preferred), but '''must''' be uploaded in a bitmap format (transparent PNG preferred). A good, free software vector graphics application which can handle SVG and PNG exports is [http://www.inkscape.org/ inkscape]. The dimensions are up to you as long as the images scale well. In order for your logo to be used, the logo itself must be free content with a reduced attribution requirement, but we can work this out with you once we have picked your logo.<br />
<br />
To participate, [[Special:Userlogin|create an account]] and [[Special:Upload|upload your logos]]. A deadline will be announced once we have a better feel for how many submissions to expect. The [[moderators]] act as a jury.<br />
<br />
Why participate? Your logo may end up being used on millions of works large and small, giving you exposition and recognition. You will be fully acknowledged on this website as the artist. We may also announce prizes during the course of the contest.<br />
<br />
Some advice and ideas:<br />
* Don't make it too complex. See the Wikipedia article [[w:logo|logo]] for some information on what makes a good logo.<br />
* Since "Free Expression" is meant to be used primarily for artistic works, it may be a good idea to make this particular logo slightly more playful.<br />
* It's all about works being used freely, merged, copied, changed, and so on. A visual metaphor that reflects this may make the most sense.<br />
<br />
If you are confused by the wiki process, feel free to e-mail Erik at <tt>moeller AT scireview DOT de</tt>, and he will take care of things.<br />
<br />
== New Creative Commons Logos ==<br />
<br />
Please, have a look at new logos proposed for CC. They are not official CC logos (yet) but may be in a future: [[http://x.narya.net/static/terry/cc_colors.png]] [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 14:59, 8 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Current submissions ==<br />
===Swirly===<br />
"Swirly" by Erik Möller, color & b&w, available as SVG. I'm using the text "free culture" for now as a placeholder until we've decided on a final name for the definition. This probably has similarities to lots of existing logos due to its simplicity, but I feel that freedom is best defined visually through simple forms and shapes. The blue and green represent Sky and Earth, respectively, to indicate that this is a global movement; the open shapes are somewhat informed by the copyright "C", which is, in a way, subverted to express fluidity and constant change. The soft pink subtitle is meant to complete the three primary colors, red, green and blue, from which all other colors can be additively created. The shapes are also meant to be somewhat reminiscent of a [[w:bass clef|bass clef]].--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 18:15, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Swirly-logo-black.png|150px|]] [[Image:Swirly-logo-color.png|150px|]]<br />
<br />
===Yin Yang===<br />
"Yin Yang" by Bernhard Schillo. The shape of the logo is one half of the yin and yang symbol. I believe, this is a good basis for this logo, cause it symbolizes contradictions, which generate reality. In this case the "C" (for Culture) coexists with the "uncultured" nature. Or another possible connotation: free culture and not free culture. Human culture of property can't exist without the "seed" of free culture contained in itself and without a strong free culture on the opposition. The forces have to work together. <br />
The Logo also reminds to the Copyright-Logo. But the circle around the "C" is not a circle. The shape indicates, that something is given back. <br />
<br />
The logo should be elaborated if used. These are just my first ideas and drafts. I will think about it again when the discussion about the name is finished. And i hope, my english is understandable :)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_signet.png|Free_culture_logo_signet.png]] <br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_var.png|Free_culture_logo_var.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free Content Logo ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free3.png|Logo|left|thumb]] [[Image:Freex.png|Logo|left|thumb]]<br />
[[Image:glob.png|Logo|left|thumb]]</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logo_contest&diff=2104Logo contest2006-06-08T13:00:00Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* New Creative Commons Logos */</p>
<hr />
<div>We need two separate logos, a "Free Content" logo and a "Free Expression" logo, that can be attached to works covered by licenses which meet the conditions defined in the [[Definition|Free Content and Expression Definition]]. Each of these logos should consist of:<br />
<br />
* a symbol or sign that is the same for both logos (minor variations allowed)<br />
* a label, i.e. "Free Content" or "Free Expression"<br />
<br />
Logos '''must''' have a vector graphics source (SVG preferred), but '''must''' be uploaded in a bitmap format (transparent PNG preferred). A good, free software vector graphics application which can handle SVG and PNG exports is [http://www.inkscape.org/ inkscape]. The dimensions are up to you as long as the images scale well. In order for your logo to be used, the logo itself must be free content with a reduced attribution requirement, but we can work this out with you once we have picked your logo.<br />
<br />
To participate, [[Special:Userlogin|create an account]] and [[Special:Upload|upload your logos]]. A deadline will be announced once we have a better feel for how many submissions to expect. The [[moderators]] act as a jury.<br />
<br />
Why participate? Your logo may end up being used on millions of works large and small, giving you exposition and recognition. You will be fully acknowledged on this website as the artist. We may also announce prizes during the course of the contest.<br />
<br />
Some advice and ideas:<br />
* Don't make it too complex. See the Wikipedia article [[w:logo|logo]] for some information on what makes a good logo.<br />
* Since "Free Expression" is meant to be used primarily for artistic works, it may be a good idea to make this particular logo slightly more playful.<br />
* It's all about works being used freely, merged, copied, changed, and so on. A visual metaphor that reflects this may make the most sense.<br />
<br />
If you are confused by the wiki process, feel free to e-mail Erik at <tt>moeller AT scireview DOT de</tt>, and he will take care of things.<br />
<br />
== New Creative Commons Logos ==<br />
<br />
Please, have a look at new logos proposed for CC. They are not official CC logos (yet) but may be in a future: [[http://x.narya.net/static/terry/cc_colors.png http://x.narya.net/static/terry/cc_colors.png]] [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 14:59, 8 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Current submissions ==<br />
===Swirly===<br />
"Swirly" by Erik Möller, color & b&w, available as SVG. I'm using the text "free culture" for now as a placeholder until we've decided on a final name for the definition. This probably has similarities to lots of existing logos due to its simplicity, but I feel that freedom is best defined visually through simple forms and shapes. The blue and green represent Sky and Earth, respectively, to indicate that this is a global movement; the open shapes are somewhat informed by the copyright "C", which is, in a way, subverted to express fluidity and constant change. The soft pink subtitle is meant to complete the three primary colors, red, green and blue, from which all other colors can be additively created. The shapes are also meant to be somewhat reminiscent of a [[w:bass clef|bass clef]].--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 18:15, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Swirly-logo-black.png|150px|]] [[Image:Swirly-logo-color.png|150px|]]<br />
<br />
===Yin Yang===<br />
"Yin Yang" by Bernhard Schillo. The shape of the logo is one half of the yin and yang symbol. I believe, this is a good basis for this logo, cause it symbolizes contradictions, which generate reality. In this case the "C" (for Culture) coexists with the "uncultured" nature. Or another possible connotation: free culture and not free culture. Human culture of property can't exist without the "seed" of free culture contained in itself and without a strong free culture on the opposition. The forces have to work together. <br />
The Logo also reminds to the Copyright-Logo. But the circle around the "C" is not a circle. The shape indicates, that something is given back. <br />
<br />
The logo should be elaborated if used. These are just my first ideas and drafts. I will think about it again when the discussion about the name is finished. And i hope, my english is understandable :)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_signet.png|Free_culture_logo_signet.png]] <br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_var.png|Free_culture_logo_var.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free Content Logo ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free3.png|Logo|left|thumb]] [[Image:Freex.png|Logo|left|thumb]]<br />
[[Image:glob.png|Logo|left|thumb]]</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Logo_contest&diff=2103Logo contest2006-06-08T12:59:19Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: new cc logos proosed</p>
<hr />
<div>We need two separate logos, a "Free Content" logo and a "Free Expression" logo, that can be attached to works covered by licenses which meet the conditions defined in the [[Definition|Free Content and Expression Definition]]. Each of these logos should consist of:<br />
<br />
* a symbol or sign that is the same for both logos (minor variations allowed)<br />
* a label, i.e. "Free Content" or "Free Expression"<br />
<br />
Logos '''must''' have a vector graphics source (SVG preferred), but '''must''' be uploaded in a bitmap format (transparent PNG preferred). A good, free software vector graphics application which can handle SVG and PNG exports is [http://www.inkscape.org/ inkscape]. The dimensions are up to you as long as the images scale well. In order for your logo to be used, the logo itself must be free content with a reduced attribution requirement, but we can work this out with you once we have picked your logo.<br />
<br />
To participate, [[Special:Userlogin|create an account]] and [[Special:Upload|upload your logos]]. A deadline will be announced once we have a better feel for how many submissions to expect. The [[moderators]] act as a jury.<br />
<br />
Why participate? Your logo may end up being used on millions of works large and small, giving you exposition and recognition. You will be fully acknowledged on this website as the artist. We may also announce prizes during the course of the contest.<br />
<br />
Some advice and ideas:<br />
* Don't make it too complex. See the Wikipedia article [[w:logo|logo]] for some information on what makes a good logo.<br />
* Since "Free Expression" is meant to be used primarily for artistic works, it may be a good idea to make this particular logo slightly more playful.<br />
* It's all about works being used freely, merged, copied, changed, and so on. A visual metaphor that reflects this may make the most sense.<br />
<br />
If you are confused by the wiki process, feel free to e-mail Erik at <tt>moeller AT scireview DOT de</tt>, and he will take care of things.<br />
<br />
== New Creative Commons Logos ==<br />
<br />
Please, have a look at new logos proposed for CC. They are not official CC logos (yet) but may be in a future: [http://x.narya.net/static/terry/cc_colors.png http://x.narya.net/static/terry/cc_colors.png] [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 14:59, 8 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Current submissions ==<br />
===Swirly===<br />
"Swirly" by Erik Möller, color & b&w, available as SVG. I'm using the text "free culture" for now as a placeholder until we've decided on a final name for the definition. This probably has similarities to lots of existing logos due to its simplicity, but I feel that freedom is best defined visually through simple forms and shapes. The blue and green represent Sky and Earth, respectively, to indicate that this is a global movement; the open shapes are somewhat informed by the copyright "C", which is, in a way, subverted to express fluidity and constant change. The soft pink subtitle is meant to complete the three primary colors, red, green and blue, from which all other colors can be additively created. The shapes are also meant to be somewhat reminiscent of a [[w:bass clef|bass clef]].--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 18:15, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Swirly-logo-black.png|150px|]] [[Image:Swirly-logo-color.png|150px|]]<br />
<br />
===Yin Yang===<br />
"Yin Yang" by Bernhard Schillo. The shape of the logo is one half of the yin and yang symbol. I believe, this is a good basis for this logo, cause it symbolizes contradictions, which generate reality. In this case the "C" (for Culture) coexists with the "uncultured" nature. Or another possible connotation: free culture and not free culture. Human culture of property can't exist without the "seed" of free culture contained in itself and without a strong free culture on the opposition. The forces have to work together. <br />
The Logo also reminds to the Copyright-Logo. But the circle around the "C" is not a circle. The shape indicates, that something is given back. <br />
<br />
The logo should be elaborated if used. These are just my first ideas and drafts. I will think about it again when the discussion about the name is finished. And i hope, my english is understandable :)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_signet.png|Free_culture_logo_signet.png]] <br />
[[Image:Free_culture_logo_var.png|Free_culture_logo_var.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free Content Logo ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Free3.png|Logo|left|thumb]] [[Image:Freex.png|Logo|left|thumb]]<br />
[[Image:glob.png|Logo|left|thumb]]</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Which_name_should_you_use%3F&diff=1729Talk:Which name should you use?2006-05-10T12:03:16Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Paths of naming */</p>
<hr />
<div>== A choice must be made ==<br />
<br />
I think the definition must make a choice. Either it is "Free Content", "Free Expression" or whatever else. Having two (allegedly) equivalent expressions doesn't cut it, it blurs the message. For example, the FSD is the Free Software Definition; there is also an Open Source Definition; there is no "Free Software and Open Source Definition". Settling on a single term sends a clear message and makes it easier to stick in people's minds.<br />
<br />
By giving alternatives, we make it look like we don't know exactly what we want to talk about... We also make people focus on the ambiguity in the title rather than the clear message in the definition.<br />
<br />
(I personally find "Free Content" and "Free Creation" are the two best choices, but it doesn't really matter; what matters is that a decision is made) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:43, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Agree, with my vote going for "creation"(i think "free culture" is best of all, but this seems to be taken :-) My english is far from perfect, but if "free thought" has same connotations as it has in polish i would seriously consider also that [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 02:25, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I think "free thought" is a very bad choice because thinking is not the same thing as creating works ''at all''. Having ideas is part of the process of creating, but it is not in itself threatened by copyright (well, except clauses prohibiting analysis of DRM systems).<br />
::What is a stake is the actual process of creating and sharing works, which is much more than simply ''thinking'' and ''expressing ideas'' (which is why I also think "free expression" is bad :-)).<br />
::I'm sorry if my wording is not very clear, but it's not easy to try to explain this (especially, for me, in English). I tried a similar explanation under [http://freedomdefined.org/Talk:Definition/Unstable#Things_which_are_not_works_of_the_mind "things which are not works of the mind"]. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 02:41, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'm not sure we ''must'' decide for a single name. Two names seem like a reasonable compromise as it will be very hard to please everyone with a single phrase. Some prefer a term which is pragmatic and neutral ("free content"), others may prefer one which is artistic and natural ("free expression"?). "Creation" is a controversial term within the GNU/FSF world; see the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html Words to Avoid] page on GNU. Then again, so is "content". I personally like "free content" because it is already in use with the meaning we apply to it, especially in the Wikimedia world. I would be very reluctant to give up that part.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 15:10, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I think free content is probably the term that will stick: it's far from perfect (I agree with the FSF, clumping all works as a single commodity 'content' is reductive) but it's in common usage already (as is ''open content''[http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22open+content%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official]) and it's probably the most natural sounding (which will go along way towards its wider adoption). The only problem with free content other groups define it elsewhere by other groups which might cause friction.<br />
<br />
::I think we should avoid "free expression" - while free content/software can be seen as an extension of freedom of expression/speech the reverse isn't necesarily true: you can have freedom of speech/expression without free content. It also sounds a bit grandiose. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 21:58, 6 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Paths of naming ==<br />
<br />
The way I see it, there are two possible paths of terminology: Either we try to define one or two basic terms which encompass the largest number of works possible (as was originally the goal with "Free Content and Expression Definition"), or we define a single all-encompassing term which is, however, always ''instantiated'' to refer to a specific work. To clarify, either we just have something like:<br />
<br />
* Free Content<br />
** works of a primarily functional nature, e.g. scientific data, encyclopedias, etc.<br />
* Free Expression<br />
** works of a primarily artistic nature, e.g. music, paintings<br />
<br />
Or we have a more complex model:<br />
<br />
* Free Culture<br />
** generic: Free Content<br />
** code: Free Software<br />
** music, paintings, etc.: Free Art<br />
** scientific data, publications, etc.: Free Knowledge<br />
** interactive play: Free Game<br />
<br />
The definition, in this second case, could be called "Free Culture Definition", and the specific terms appropriate for certain works would be listed within it.<br />
<br />
I'm somewhat undecided on the issue. On the one hand, I'm worried about an inflation of names. On the other, I'm worried about adoption. How does "This painting is Free Art, as per the Free Culture Definition" sound? As opposed to "This painting is a Free Expression, as per the Free Content and Expression Definition".<br />
<br />
I note, in fact, that rough beginnings of a "Free Culture Definition" have been drafted on the [http://wiki.freeculture.org/index.php/Free_Culture_Definition Free Culture Wiki]. Another opportunity to merge efforts, along with the Open Knowledge Definition?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 16:48, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Free Culture UK also took a stab at a [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureDefinition Free Culture Definition] last October but ultimately they were unable to come to a consensus on what this should and should not include.--RufusPollock 8 May 2006 (thought I'd posted this 5 May 2006 but there must have been a problem)<br />
<br />
:Hi Erik,<br />
<br />
:I object to the idea that works could be inherently functional or non-functional. Nelson Goodman (a philosopher and theoretician of art) explained that we should replace the question "What is art?" with "When is art?". It means the "artistic" or "functional" aspect is related to context, not only to the work involved (i.e. ''is_functional(...)'' is not a single-argument function of the work ;-)).<br />
<br />
:This translates in concrete situations. Like Ricardo has explained, in the context of role-playing, computer games, etc., works can have a functional or artistic role depending on the situation. It is not a sophistic argument, but a concrete one.<br />
<br />
:I also want to point out that splitting into several terms defeats the whole point of writing an unified definition. It defeats our view that contents must be re-usable beyond the original intent of the author. I don't mind if the original author had a functional or artistic intent in mind, I want to be able to choose another intent for my own uses, and my own modifications to the work. This is really what an unified definition is about.<br />
<br />
:Of course, ''[http://www.fsf.org free software]'' and ''[http://artlibre.org free art]'' already exist as actual movements and sets of practices and ideals. But we are trying to go further than that and provide an unified, yet clear, definition. We are trying to create our own norm, based on our own ideals, not to build a compilation of existing norms. And I'm sure some of these movements will agree with this goal (the free art movement does at least, the Free Art License people support the goal of an unified Free Content Definition).<br />
<br />
:Hope that helps :-))) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:07, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:Mmmh, [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goodman-aesthetics/#4.6 interesting web page about Goodman's view of art]. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:24, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: Functional vs. artistic aside, one could argue that if it was called the "Free Culture Definition", and the phrase would only occur in the context of the definition itself, while the works would always be described in more specific terms ("free art", "free software", etc.), it would be easier to arrive at a single definition that is a superset of all others, and that it would increase the likelihood of people referring to the definition itself. "This work is free X as per the Free Culture Definition" is always self-explanatory: One needs only to look up the Free Culture Definition, and it is clear what this means. "This work is free X", on the other hand, will always be ambiguous, not least because of the ambiguity of "free".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 18:26, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Instead of saying "This work is free X as per the Free Culture Definition", why not just say "This X is a Free Content" or "This X is Free Culture" ("this painting is free culture", etc.)?<br />
:::But I don't think it's an important issue anyway ;) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:48, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::The above distinction between 'Free Content' as functional works and 'Free Expression' as artistic works in my view makes no sense. It requires subjective judgments - one person's function can be another's art. Where would, for example, a history book fall? History is a form of storytelling but does contain many facts such as an encyclopedia. Also, sculptural works may serve both functional and aesthetic purposes. I also don't think one needs an umbrella term which then gets broken down into sub-categories. Those sub-categories can then be the subject of further debate & disagreements as to what free per. art means. Isn't the point of this exercise to define "free" as applied to cultural works once & for all? In this case, the relevant statement is "This work is free per the Free X Definition." I am in favour of calling it a "Free Content" Definition. Expression is the activity. Content is the result and is broadly encompassing of a variety of different forms of expression. --[[User:Mia|Mia]] 13:21, 7 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I'd have to agree with Mia in that I find it particularly problematic to propose a dichotomy between artistic and functional works, and the examples that demonstrate the difficulty in doing so are plentiful. I also agree that in the interest of unity and simplicity, it makes sense to go with a single term that would hopefully stick. I'm personally not crazy about the term "content" for the various reasons elaborated above, but then again, if we don't like the use of the word, why not take it back and modify the meaning to something we do like? All in all, if we are looking to build a movement and not just a definition, I think we'll need a single, unified concept to do so. Furthermore, to separate "artistic" from "functional" works appears to single out different classes of works that I think it would be to our benefit, despite the seemingly overarching nature, to group together.--[[User:Elizabeth stark|Elizabeth stark]] 08:24, 8 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
--RufusPollock 8 May 2006 (thought I'd posted this 5 May 2006 but there must have been a problem).<br />
<br />
My 2 cents (see also previous discussion related to merging of FCED and Open Knowledge Definition http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Open_Knowledge_Definition):<br />
<br />
# Expression should be left out (inherently more complex and more controversial to define free expression than free content/open knowledge)<br />
# 'Free' vs. 'Open'. This is an old chestnut that can lead to a lot of debate without any resolution. In my experience 'open' has been easier to use (hence the 'Open Knowledge Foundation') as there is no confusion between 'libre' and 'gratuit'. Also, at least outside software (and perhaps content), most talk is of 'open' e.g. open geodata, open access, open data etc. However I believe this a moot point and Erik's suggestion to go with something like 'Free Content and Open Knowledge Definition' might be an easy way to cover both bases.<br />
## See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_content<br />
# Content vs. Knowledge: content is generally used to denote creative works (articles/music/film/). It is very rarely used to denote other types of knowledge such as data collections, maps etc. Thus if the aim is to focus the definition on 'content' that is what should be used but if one would like to be a bit more general I would suggest inclusion/use of a term such as 'knowledge'<br />
## My view on this is that the *principles* that we are seeking to lay down have enough general applicability that it is worth drawing that out. At the same time I believe that it is essential that the promotional effort around these principles, i.e. to have them adopted as community 'norms' or 'guidelines', *must* be tailored to the concerns and interests of the specific constituency at hand. This 'tailoring' may involve some alteration/additions to the general principles but, as stated, I believe that these principles have immediate general applicability and so such alterations will likely be quite small (the big changes will be in such things as examples used, elucidatory comments etc etc.)<br />
<br />
Overall I think we want to go with either:<br />
* Free Content and Open Knowledge Definition (broader)<br />
* Free Content Definition or Open Content Definition (narrower)<br />
<br />
(unsigned comment)<br />
----<br />
<br />
I like the idea of saying "This work is free X as per the Free Culture Definition". It allows people to call their own content/art/game/whatever by whichever term they prefer, but providing a broader framework, "free culture", which hopefully people from those different fields can agree covers their work as well as other forms of expression. It doesn't mean the definition is suggesting a dichotomy between artistic and functional works, but allows creators of those works to define their own work in that way if they want to. It seems a good compromise to prevent people who disagree with the term "content" rejecting this form of the definition. We can have the term "free culture" without preventing people who are used to using the term "free content" from continuing to do that. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 14:50, 8 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I tend to be partial to "Free Culture Definition" as well for various reasons, the most important being that "Free Culture" is a) reasonably unique, b) a term nobody seems to have any objections to. I'm seeing a few objections to "Free Expression", so that part of the name will probably have to go in any case. I'm going to prepare a draft set of poll options so we can start making some progress towards a resolution.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 00:50, 10 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I have to ask if "Free Culture" wouldn't entail a confusion with Lawrence Lessig's book? I did not read this book, but I don't think he would specifically advocate contents which follow the freedoms we are proposing. Not to mention that the book itself is published under a non-commercial license!<br />
::Also, "free culture" implies "free downloading of existing works" for me. Culture refers to the consumption of already produced works of art, rather than the act of creation itself. AFAIK it is the traditionnally admitted difference between culture and art. (you can replace "art" with the more general "content creation" of course) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 03:30, 10 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::(OTOH, choosing the same name as Lessig's book may be an interesting way to change its message ''a posteriori'' ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 03:38, 10 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: "Free Culture" and "Free Culture Definition" are not the same, so we do not have to really worry about it. However it is politically sensitive matter, and we should communicate both with Lessig and Free Culture Movement ( freeculture.org ). I do not think anybody will oppose this initiative, and this is a good time to merge efforts, so this name could be great tool for unified position to defend minimum freedoms. "Free Culture Definition" is the best name we can work out anyway. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 14:03, 10 May 2006 (CEST)</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=1649Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-05-05T22:27:06Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Recommendations */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
== Rewording Edit ==<br />
<br />
I submitted a relatively large change. While the diff itself may be big, especially in the preamble, but I don't think I've made significant changes to the tone of the content. As a result, I think it is probably alright coming this late.<br />
<br />
Here's a summary of the larger changes or set of changes that I made:<br />
<br />
I removed a number of "therefores", and a number of comma-separated clauses acting as parenthetical asides that I thought it could survive without. I tried to break up a few long sentences. This was all purely stylistic.<br />
<br />
I dropped the "in addition to a requirement of author attribution" from the preamble because it's clear without it (IMHO) and because it seems to qualify a statement about essential freedoms which we speak out against below. I think it's best to state clearly that there are essential freedoms and then there are some extra restrictions that do not in fact have an impact on these essential freedom. Attribution is one of these but need not be specially cases. This way it doesn't sound like an exception but an explanation that it is ''by definition'' free.<br />
<br />
In two paragraphs of the first three paragraphs there are these two lists:<br />
<br />
:artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents<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.<br />
<br />
They seem to be redundant so I've tried to reduce it to just one list where the the first list was.<br />
<br />
I've removed "regardless of their profession, their beliefs, their country of origin, or any other criteria" and just say "anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." I think it's just as clear and more general.<br />
<br />
I switched the strange switch into the second person in the paragraph with the god like creator. It read nice but was a jarring switch.<br />
<br />
I added a line or two mentioning that some licenses are also used purely to take away people's freedoms. ASCAP is a licensing organization. The last draft talks about licenses as if they are only used to give away freedom but they were first used to sell freedom in restrained ways.<br />
<br />
I was confused by the line: "Indeed, depending on the nature of the work, it may even be unethical to deny any of the enumerated freedoms above." It seems like our argument in this document is that it's always unethical, on some level, to restrict essential freedom. I think that this sort of confuses the issue and, in any case, don't add much where it was.<br />
<br />
I removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:This definition only covers freedom in terms of copyright law; usage of a work may be restricted by other laws.<br />
<br />
I guess I have two issues here. First, it's not clear what these other laws and this sounds very legalistic for a statement of principles. More importantly, it seems like we would want to oppose other types of freedoms articulated in other types of law as well. The FSD is useful in opposing patents just as well as copyright (which the overly forumlate OSD could not). I don't think it's necessary.<br />
<br />
I've removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:"Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work."<br />
<br />
Because I basically moved it into the list of essential freedoms above. There was already an example there and I think that this is important enough it's worth dealing with a little higher up in the document. I think it's now more clear and doesn't need to be mentioned below.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 02:01, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'll have another edit later. The main problem I have is with the changes in the first few paragraphs about "information goods". First, I don't like this phrase because it essentially adopts the language of information as property, a commodity. I find it somewhat amusing that you would choose this language given your objections to the word "content". ;-) I find the argument against attempts to equate information with physical property very persuasive, and am inclined to remove this phrase entirely from the document.<br />
<br />
: The second problem is with the change to the examples enumerated in the beginning. The ones chosen - "Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, .." - were chosen explicitly because the argument that ''these'' works should be free is strongest and most persuasive. Reworded, it essentially sounds like a declaration against copyright on "anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits". This can definitely not stay this way.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:54, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Sounds good. "Information goods" was clumsy and we're better off with out it.<br />
<br />
::I'm still worried by the list of things. We're suggestion, but not defining, the scope of the document here. Something to think about and work out in drafting period. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:36, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Fair Use ==<br />
<br />
Angela made the point that we should position our definition vs. the existing rights of fair use. This echoes some of the sentiments of Larry's response. So we should think about that before we take it live.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:09, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Made some further edits as per the above. Avoided explicitly mentioning fair use for now to avoid confusion, might add that later.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:28, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not entirely clear defining our position in regards to fair use should mean here. I'm concerned because (a) fair use is only in the US a few other countries. Some other juristictions have similar "fair dealing" law but there are important differences. It's also a balancing act left up to judges and can sometimes be very unclear. I'm also concerned because (b) fair use is a set of compromises that is supposed to balance what would be overly restricted copyright. Our argument here is that copyright ''is'' always overly restricted and that we need to not settle for fair use rights but for something more meaningful. Or am I completely off-base here? --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:44, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No, I think you're right. From an ethical perspective, I think that it is important that fair use rights are ''also'' protected and broadened, but I'm not sure if this belongs into this definition. For now, I have added the phrase "Only very limited freedoms are granted to others" to clarify that copyright is not absolute; perhaps that is sufficient.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 05:47, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I think an argument can be made that it is important that any definition expressly acknowledge fair use (US) or fair dealing (rest of the world) and/or any other exception or limitation to copyright law. This is because of recent judicial decisions that tend to find, for example, that one can contractually override exceptions to copyright law (such as reverse engineering). Thus, I think it could be important to clarify that licenses that satisfy the free content/expression definition are "fair use/fair dealing plus" and grant a layer of permissions in addition to and on top existing exceptions to copyright law. Happy to leave this up to community discussion, however.--[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 10:12, 1 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Fair use is not unified at all among countries, so referring to it in the definition would introduce uncertainty and complication (unless the definition also gives its own definition of fair use). Moreover, fair use is completely covered by the rights specified in the definition AFAIU. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:43, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I would submit that the issue of whether a specific acknowledgement that free licenses apply in addition to and on top of existing exceptions and limitations that exist at law should not be decided based on whether the term "fair use" is used or not. One can use the terminology that I have just used "exceptions and limitations at law." This encompasses jurisdictional differences. And it should not be the case that "fair use" or any other exceptions or limitations are covered by the rights specified in the definition. In fact, I would have thought that the entire point of free licenses is to carve out a space that exists beyond what is currently provided for by law. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 2:23, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Hi Mia. As far as I've understood you correctly, I don't agree. Your proposal doesn't encompass jurisdictional differences, it just ''hides'' them which is vastly different. If I read "exceptions and limitations at law", I don't know what the text is talking about because those exceptions and limitations are different depending on the jurisdiction. Consequently, the text has no normative value because people from different parts of the world will understand different things.<br />
<br />
:Let me stress it, because it is very important: ''the Definition should be totally independent of any local specifics''. There must be ''no international insecurity'' as to what legal system the definition is referring to when it is using a given expression. The obvious way to achieve this is to avoid any reference to regionally varying legal concepts (or only as a side note as is the case for moral rights; then fair use or legal exceptions to copyright might also be mentioned as a side note, not a constitutive part of the definition).<br />
<br />
:Please take example from the Free Software Definition: it is worded in terms which are clear for everyone in the world (assuming they speak English ;-)), it does not refer to any non-essential legal concept. Actually even the notion of copyright is not essential in the Free Software Definition: it is mentioned only as a common way of implementing the FSD, not as a constitutive part of the definition.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:05, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Effective Technical Measures ==<br />
<br />
In regards to the little back-and-forth about "effective technical measures." I now realize that you are using the term as a little legal term-of-art to distinguish between TPMs and things like formats or compression. However, I'm afraid it still blocks things like GPG/PGP encrypted email. I'm going to suggest a phrasing like, "technical measure designed to restrict the freedoms above from being exercised by the person to whom the work is distributed."<br />
<br />
This phrasing doesn't block things like encrypted email, compression, formats, etc. and doesn't require using a relatively obscure legal term. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:52, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Physical works (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: 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 />
:A requisite would be to replace "modified versions" with "modified copies". If one is allowed to make a "modified version" of a physical, autographic work of art, then the original is destroyed in the process. Not something we would like to encourage. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:02, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure we can really consider physical works to be covered by the definition: concepts like distribution, copying and modifications do not seem to really apply. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:50, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::You can read the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License]. It has been worded very carefully by artists and lawyers so that it ''does'' apply to physical works. The key is that there is a distinction between the ''original'' and ''copies''. Only ''copies'' can be distributed and modified (of course, this applies seamlessly in the digital world where any transmission of data is implicitly a copy). By recursivity, a ''copy'' becomes itself an ''original'' for the person who receives it, and can make ''copies of the copy'' (modified or not).<br />
<br />
:::All licenses need not be worded as carefully, but the Definition itself would be sub-optimal if its wording left this aspect onto the table.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:07, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::In which case I would note that when they say a ''copy'' they seem to be talking about a converting an original to a digital work for which the freedoms can then apply. The freedoms mentioned in the above license do not seem to apply to ''originals'' at all, in which case I would argue that Art Libre are really talking about digital works in their license and avoiding the whole question of physical works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:47, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::You understood wrongly. ''Copies'' in the Free Art License can be analog copies (e.g. you can make an analog copy of a painting, which gives you a different painting). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:50, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not sure it does: the license also talks about the freedom to modify copies which implies that the copies themselves must have the property of modifiability which, in my mind at least, implies they should be digital (certainly, painting copies would not seem to fall in this category). I'm not sure you can talk about free software/content freedoms in respect to non-software works without really talking about digital works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Modified copies means the modification can take place in the course of making the copy itself. Like if you make a parodic copy of Mona Lisa: you don't need to first make a verbatim copy and then modify it. However, you ''can'' modify a non-digital work (a painting, a piece of sculpture...). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:21, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the license authors should probably clarify that, the license seems to talk about the freedom to "modify the copies", but says nothing about the freedom to modify the reproduction process. Maybe the two things are the same thing but it would seem open to intepretation.<br />
::::::::As for modifying painting and sculptures, you are right, of course, you ''can'' modify physical works although it's not a freedom I think a lot of people would use for sculptures and it's a freedom generally implicit in physical property law: once you buy a painting or sculpture you are free to do what you like with it. OTOH, digital works need this freedom thanks to advent of things like DRM and non-modifiable file formats such as object code and PDFs. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Mmmh, you should not mix up physical property law and "intellectual property" law. Even if you bought the physical medium of an artwork, it doesn't give you the right to modify the work, because the "intellectual property" still belongs to the author (unless the rights were also granted or transferred by contract).<br />
:::::::::This is especially true in countries where the moral right of the author is protected by the law, by the way. In France, if you buy a painting and then decide to destroy or modify it, the author can sue you (and he will win). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]]<br />
::::::::::Have no fear, Antoine, I'm not mixing the two up at all and explicitly differentiated between them in my remarks above. My point was that when you purchase physical property you are implicitly free to what you like with it (i.e. modify it). That the Art Libre license makes reference to modification of copies seems to imply they are talking about digital works. But I think you didn't address all the points I made above.<br />
== Things which are not works of the mind ==<br />
<br />
The word "content" is good for non-material commons, but what about "material commons" like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information, "commons" in general?. They need also a "free/freedom" definition. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 02:13, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). It is not only a legal category, but also a philosophical one: creation of works - art works, software works, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. The additions you are proposing do not belong to this category. Trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message only destroys the meaning of the message and transforms it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful.<br />
<br />
:Of course, this does not preclude someone else from giving a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. Only, the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents. <br />
<br />
:(btw., this kind of thing probably belongs in a FAQ ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 02:27, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: Ok, I get your pragmatic point of view. But only one comment. Think about seeds like code: used, improved, copied, studied in the past by every generation. Now we are changing from a free model to a private model ([http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml Monsanto's Nightmare] and similar). I prefer to use the term [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons#Wider_usage_of_the_term Commons] that includes Free Content (non-material commons) and material commons. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 04:22, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I understand your opinion, and I could agree if we were trying to write a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing). But we are trying to write a Definition, which must be precise and based on firm (conceptual) ground ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:23, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Source code ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Erik_M%C3%B6ller]] said: 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.<br />
<br />
:The common position among the Free Art License people (not that I always agree with them ;-)) is that providing the source code is a subcase of allowing to study the work. They argue that the source code is necessary to study software, while there is no such necessity for works of art.<br />
<br />
:One could counter-argue that even if source code is not necessary to study a piece of non-software content, it is nonetheless very practical for doing modifications (the GNU GPL defines source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it").<br />
<br />
:Of course another problem is that some kinds a work do not allow any clear notion of source code. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:11, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::From my own perspective, as a representative of the [http://www.freeroleplay.org/ Free RPG Community] there are many examples where a source code is a real requirement. A pen-and-paper roleplaying game can be both an artistic work as well as a functional work. Roleplaying games can be converted into software computer games so source code can be required for this. Many players frequently make house rules and ammendments so access to source code is requisite for this - both to the rules and to the . There are so many reasons to have a source code even from just our narrow field.<br />
<br />
::This is quite aside from the fact that access to the source code of a free content work might be necessary not only to study the work, but to study how the work was put together. Trivially, this could mean as little as being able to examine a word processor document to see what fonts are being used, etc. A more important example could be being able to examine a layered image file to see how a image effect was put together.<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure which works you are referring to that do not have a clear notion of a source code: the only such works I am aware of are non-digital works in which case the other freedoms may not apply anyway (see my remarks above). Please see my remarks here for more infomation: [[Talk:Definition]] --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 00:00, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I fullheartedly agree that the distinction between artistic and functional works is a fallacy (I have already said this to various people, including RMS). That is why, in my opinion, the same broad freedoms should apply to free contents as well as free software (the wording of the definition can differ of course, and that's why we are here ;-)).<br />
<br />
:::As for freedom for physical works, you can read my answer to your remark ;-)) <br />
:::But even for digital works, can simple "transparent" binary data be considered the source code for everything? Let's say I have the WAV recording of a concert. What do the bytes tell me about how the guitarist played the strings of his instrument, or even what precise notes he played, with what effects etc.?<br />
<br />
:::Software writing is a symbolic activity (writing code is writing text according to certain conventions). As such, its representation as text (i.e. ASCII or Unicode bytes) is a perfect mirror of the way it functions. It is not necessarily the case with other types of works.<br />
<br />
:::But I do agree that access to some kind of "source code" is important in many cases. Complicated isn't it? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::It is indeed complicated and I'm glad you also disagree with RMS false distinction between "artistic", "functional" and "political" works.<br />
<br />
::::IMHO I always found the GPL definition of source code (BTW, why isn't the GPL listed as one of the free content licenses?) to be the simplest and most flexible. For example, when start talking about things such as music recordings, photographs, etc, in other words works that originate with physical objects, it is often better to apply the freedoms to the digital copies only. In your example, it is prohibitive to provide the recording studio, instruments, etc that produced the original work, but it is simple enough to provide the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", in other words, the uncompressed WAV files or the music in some other modifiable format of the digital copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:01, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem with source code in works of art is that it's always hard to determine what is source code. Look at flash movies made by jibjab.com: they use photos and drawings to create animated flash movies with words and music which usually are themselves derivative works. So what is source code? Original song with it's score? Original photos? Code they wrote using this or that program for creating flash animations? All of above? I'm not sure such a requirement will have a positive impact on culture. It is important to have an access to work without DRM restrictions. But asking an author for all the pieces he used in the process of creaton is not necessery and practical. There we have a problem of tools: most advanced programs for creating digital works are proprietary. Asking for a source code of a work is of little practical value if we do not have access for tools itself. Following that logic we could ask authors to use only free software tools what itself is a good thing, but this seems simply going too far. My opinion is, that source code is not necessity, much more important is using open formats whenever possible (and please note, that even now it's not easy if you create multimedia works). [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:24, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I couldn't disagree more strongly: from my own experience the freedom to modify or study a work is strongly predicated on having access to the source. Without the access to the source, these freedoms are meaningless license verbiage. Again, drawing from my own experiences in the pen-and-paper RPG world, the recent "open gaming movement" used the [http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Open Gaming License] was a (partial) copyleft license with no source requirement used to license the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying system (more popularly called the d20 System). The original d20 system documents whre provided in a modifiable format. However, without the source requirement downstream publishers simply published derivative works in PDFs and hardcopies only, effectively creating a dead-end for the works, taking from the commons but not giving back to it.<br />
<br />
::::I also dispute that it isn't clear what the source code is: the GPL clearly defines this as "preferred form of the work for making modifications" which, in the cases you mention above, obviously resolves the issue for the sources of digital works. In the case of the flash animation, the source is clearly the original SWF file, the image file is its own source, and I don't see an amiguity over that (whether requirements to provide all the elements used to compose a work should also be needed is a seperate discussion).<br />
<br />
::::The argument regarding properietary programs also seems spurious: in the software world not all compilers are free software, cheap or easy to access but that doesn't have any bearing on whether you license software written for these compilers as free software. Whether requiring free software tools for free content is a completely seperate discussion. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:34, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ricardo, what you say is "in case of works of art source code means open format". Thus basically what we have to say is very similar, we define terminology differently. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 12:10, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::That's interesting, please expand on your definition of open format: do you think the issue can be resolved by simply requiring publication in open formats, such as ODT? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:30, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::AFAIK, the common definition of open format is a format which is openly documented and (preferably) unencumbered by patents. It is insufficient w.r.t. your criteria, because by this definition PDF and Postcript are open formats (anyone can read and implement the [http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html PDF specification]). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:15, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Please note, that sometimes also formats under "reasonable and non-discriminatory license" (RAND) are treated as open, which is a big lie. I'm not sure what status PDF and Postcript have, but it seems that they are simply free. Why it is hard to extract data from PDF? I'm trying to understand in what situation open format is not enough, maybe i'm missing something. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 18:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::As Antoine clarified, an open format requirement is fine, but more important is a modifiable, source code format. The problem with PDF and Postscript is that it is possible extract source-like information from the file, but, like software object code, I believe it's tricky and lossy. Can someone who is more familiar with PDF clarify/verify this? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 18:58, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::The "problem" (actually an understandable design decision) with PDF is that it does not have any notion of textual content (let alone semantic structure). It is a purely graphical rendering language. Say you have text "FOO BAR" in a PDF, the PDF code actually says "render letter F at centimeters (15.34,24.12), render letter O at centimeters (16.78,24.12)", etc. So even a "simple" task like extracting raw text from a PDF needs heuristics to distinguish words, paragraphs, etc. (I had the pleasure of trying to do this in pure PHP and actually get 90% good results for many documents ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:12, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::So there is no problem. It's lot like a comic strip: PDF is a text in a hostile (graphic) envirement. But if this is authors will, it's OK. We can't outlaw comic strips, right?[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:33, 3 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
::::::::Who said anything about outlawing comic strips or PDF? I'm talking about allowing people the freedom to distribute PDFs, provided that they also supply the original, structured source document which rendered the PDF. The issue here is that its a non trivial task to modify or reverse engineer PDFs. Distributing in only non-modifiable formats (such as PDF or Flash) renders the freedom to modify the work impossible to use, and therefore meaningless. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:53, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My fault, bad wording. I should talk about declaring non-free, not outlawing (tried to use a metaphore and considerably failed :-) I think you are wrong about this issue. In culture there is always some kind of source code one level deeper. If you have digitally animated movie you have compressed file good for internet sharing, than not-compressed file, analog copies for theater screenings, than you have all the code, background rendering and heroes of your story in polygons or whatever. Without all that it's hard to make some kinds of derivative works, but other kinds are perfectly possible even with low-quality internet clip. In a long run this doesn't really matter. It's the law what is important and lack of any kinds of DRM, not a format characteristic by itself. Printed book is extremely non-modifiable kind of format, but i will not declare all printed works not-free because of that. To copy a book - yes, it is tricky, you need special machines for that, scanners and OCR. But you can do it, legally and practicaly. The same applies to PDF (print it, scan it, OCR it, done), and in 5, 10 or 50 years it will be the same with video or multimedia content.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:49, 4 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
:::::::Again, who said anything about declaring hard copy books as non-free? Provided the source files are freely distributed for the book the book can be free! Also your point about copying a book is invalid: The situation is very similar to using a decompiler to reverse engineer object code: both processes are highly lossy and difficult which is why the FSF made source code a predicate for free software, and which is why we should do the same for free content.<br />
<br />
:::::::As I stated above, publishing in a non-modifiable format such as hard copy print or PDF only renders the freedom to modify and study a work meaningless. You either consider the freedom to modify to be as important as the other freedoms (read/display, copy, etc) and we should require a source copy where appropriate or you would prefer they not be exercised in certain situations, in which case this you should explain why you think it is subordinate to the other freedoms and "author's will". --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:52, 5 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think you make a mistake when you think about freedom only in a digital envirement. When i say about "authors will" i think for example about art-books - individually crafted, unique hard copy books. As long as it is posible to someone who obtained such a book to make a scan and publish it and make derivatie works i will consider the book free. You not, because it's author have chosen deliberately a format (art form) not really suitable for any kind of digitalisation and manipulation. In this example to comply with a free license as you see it author of such a book has to create a completely different art object. That simply doesn't make sense. I do not agree that format characteristic rather than legal status of work and its medium makes a work non-free. This discussion gets lenghty, i suggest to wait and see what others have to say on this topic.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 00:07, 6 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
:::: Extracting anything from CVS is tricky, and any given video codec is lossy. We cant demand user friendliness, as well as we can't demand minimal resolution of a movie. My problem is different: what to do with flash, which obviously is not an open format. Are we to declare all flash works non-free by default? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 21:29, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Again, the discussion about requiring open/transparent formats is seperate to the discussion about requiring the source be distributed with free content. If you would like to discuss this second issue, please create a seperate heading for it. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:53, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I think this is strictly connected, see above[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:49, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't think I read anything about open/transparent sources in your above post. You can require source code without also requiring that source be open/transparent as well, so the two issues can be clearly seperated. Of more importance is whether we require source code and I would prefer to focus on that for the time being. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:52, 5 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free expression? ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: Free expression 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 />
== Right to use and perform ==<br />
<br />
Apparently the current definition takes as implicit the first freedom of free software (the right to use/execute).<br />
I suggest to make it explicit, because it allows to include "related rights" such as the right to perform (e.g. a play, a song...):<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. This includes all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I agree that the freedom to perform is important, especially with regard to creative works such as music and film/video, and should be made more explicit. Here is my suggestion:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to perform the work, or otherwise display it for any purpose:''' The work may be performed, broadcast, webcast, or displayed in any manner in public or private.<br />
<br />
I feel like "any use" as referred to above by [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] is a bit too broad here, but perhaps it would make sense to add the derived uses portion?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Elizabeth stark|Elizabeth stark]] 20:33, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I would advocate keeping the "freedom to use" in the freedom title as well ("use" meaning execute a program, watch a movie, etc.). It may be granted in most of today's legal systems, but the Definition should be independent from legal systems, and most readers won't know much about the law. So I think it's a healthy reminder.<br />
: Unless you think "use" is too broad a term. What problems could this entail? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:41, 5 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Right to study and apply the "information" ==<br />
<br />
I find the phrasing "study and apply the information" a bit confusing. The word "information" seems to imply that only the symbolic (e.g. textual) content of the work can be studied, not its inner workings or the nuances of its making. Also, as pointed elsewhere, "information" is really sterile.<br />
<br />
I would rephrase it:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and use the knowledge gained from the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:29, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Applying Knowledge ==<br />
<br />
First freedom now is worded as "the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it". This may however be a problem when you think about it in context of scientific research. Copyright is covering just a publication, but there may be (and usually are) also included other "IP" law such as patents. I understand "applying knowledge" as a very wide term. I'm not aware of any exisiting license which may guarantee that patents will be not used. However this is a very good statement if we want to describe our ideals.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 02:06, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I think it is an absolute fact that free content cannot be impeded by patents. We need to work towards a clearer distinction, I think, between expectations we have from the works which are called free content, and from the licenses which are used for free content. I don't need to use a complex license that has clauses about patents if that is never relevant to me. Similarly, regarding earlier discussions about source code, I don't need anything in my license about source code if I'm talking about an essentially transparent work such as an essay. So I think we need to work towards emphasizing this distinction more clearly, and then formulate precisely what expectations there are from a ''work'' that is considered free content.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: And maybe "freedom to study" is good enough as a license requirement? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 03:38, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: This is one of the cases where the absence of a clause restricting freedoms may already meet the requirements, I think. Generally, you're free to study and apply knowledge from a work, unless the terms under which you have done that restrict you from doing so. What I think is important, especially if we want this definition to be a superset of the free software definition, is that we make it clear that the work itself must be available in a format suitable for modification. Whether or not the license protects that state of transparency is optional.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:54, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Non-commercial not free? ==<br />
<br />
It seems very arbitrary to call popular non-commercial licenses such as CreativeCommons Attrbution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike non-free! I believe all current usages of the term free content or free license allow a non-commercial clause. Very little content will be free under this definition as few content creators allow other people to profit from their hard work without paying royalties. I see no reason why a license prohibiting the receiver from profiting from content he got for nothing can not be called free.<br />
<br />
In fact, I think CC A-NC-SA is the model minimum free license, as it makes use of most of the restriction clauses permitted here plus NonCommercial. This definition should allow non-commercial licenses to fall under this umbrella. The interests of Wikimedia can still be satisfied by saying only Comercial Free Content and Fair Use were allowed. Prohibiting the reuser from making profit serves to protect the free status of the content, thus justifying its use as a restriction in the license. [[User:59.94.2.232|59.94.2.232]] 06:55, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: You can find my thoughts on the Creative Commons NC licenses [http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC here]. The idea that any kind of commercial venture is an "evil" from which people must be "protected" is a highly fallacious one; indeed, it is exactly the commercial use of free content and free software that has enabled some of the most exciting projects today, ranging from the adoption of free software in large sections of industry to the integration of Wikipedia content into search engines, CD-ROMs, and existing lookup tools. ''Especially'' in a collaborative context, it is essential to grant this freedom from the start, as it is virtually impossible to get permission from any contributor to a wiki for a particular commercial use.<br />
<br />
: It is perfectly alright for authors and artists not to reliniquish rights in accordance with this definition. But the resulting works should not be called "free". There can be no compromise on the core freedoms in this definition. If anything, they may need to be expanded.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I think that the provision on free redistribution makes it quite impossible to simply "profit from others' hard work". If someone tried to derive unfair advantage from a work, then people are free to reject the offer and are very likely to find the work that the offer is based on under more reasonable terms. In fact, if a share-alike or copyleft clause is used, then you'd be likely to find whatever was added to the original work freely available too. NC clauses do nothing to prevent unfair usage, but will prevent many legit uses.--[[User:Kari Pahula|Kari Pahula]] 11:33, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Not to allow commercial re-use is a critical limitation, as Erik aptly pointed out in his essays, e.g. OpenSource-Jahrbuch 2006. So this content simply is NOT free. That's why Stallman does not support CC anymore, because the different models get to easily thrown into a single bucket altogether. The importance about the commercial clause is that some value-additions are ONLY possible in a commercial context, when it is possible to integrate the new content e.g. in Websites with advertisements, or sell packaged DVDs etc. To protect the idea of free it is enough to add Copyleft provisions. [[User:89.53.204.123|89.53.204.123]] 17:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: There is no such thing as simply profiting from others hard work. You can propagate, advertise and store their work, but these are all of benefit to the work's author (although this '''may''' require or at least be helped by the moral right of paternity). NC is a fundamental error, and the definition of NC is causing headaches. NC is another layer of permission culture, and is not Free. The FSF and DFSG freedom definitions require that work be allowed to be sold, so it is not true that they allow NC clauses. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:39, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: So - not surprisingly, I guess - I think that it is important to give some kind of recognition to those licenses that grant freedoms that are more flexible than an "all rights reserved" or "personal-use only" license. While I agree that it is not possible to accommodate those licenses within the current definition of "free" being debated here, I do think that these can and should be classified under a different brand of licenses that enable important freedoms that are palatable to different industries than would contemplate a "free" license. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 18:09, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::The distinction between commercial and non-commercial also hinders the evolution of an open society where there is no commerial action anymore ;-) -- [[User:84.190.164.6|84.190.164.6]] 08:54, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Other Free Content Definitions ==<br />
<br />
A took the time to compile a list of other free content definitions, feel free to update: -- [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureDefinition Unoficial Free Culture UK Port of Stallman's Four Freedoms]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureGuidelines Unofficial Free Culture UK Port of the Debian Free Software Guidelines]<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content Wikipedia Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeroleplay.org/about Free RPG Community] (self-post)<br />
<br />
Edited & added fc-uk definitions --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Recommendations ==<br />
<br />
I see license compatibility as a freedom, too. The more standarised they are the more works can be combined and reused. This is crucial for a free culture movement: we have to avoid balkanisation. I suggest changing reccomendation section to reflect that threat. I believe giving recommendations for CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses (they are most popular) for all publicatons and art, and GFDL (Wikipedia standard) for reference content and textbooks. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:22, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure recommandations are our concern, apart from telling which licenses satisfy to the definition. I'd rather have a characterization of licenses and let people choose (see my proposal on the [[Talk:Licenses]] page). Also, popularity is not a sufficient metric IMHO ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:17, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Popularity doesn't matter when we think about freedom, but once we settle with that it's all we should take care about :) I do not think that recommendations should be a basic part of definition, but hey, this what people will look for! Sorry for being pragmatic, but i think we should also think about "net-effect" which works under free licenses may (or may not) create.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 00:27, 6 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Moral right==<br />
<br />
This is a somewhat off-topic subthread about moral right. I put it here for reference, but we should find a way of putting offtopic or obsolete discussions elsewhere so as to keep a clean discussion page ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:03, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Mmm... I'm not at all sure about your point about moral rights and modifying sculptures and paintings. I don't know a lot about moral rights law, but surely that would only apply if you publicly distributed the work or used the author's name in relation to the modified work? So are we talking about the freedom to modify or the freedom to distribute? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 15:11, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:No, not only. Moral right includes the right to the integrity of the work, so if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author. Moral right considers that the work is part of the personality of the author. (of course, in practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: Dear Antoine, you don't know moral rights: [http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, '''which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation''']. If you modify a work, you infringe '''economic rights'''. You infringe moral rights only if your modification prejudices '''honor''' or '''reputation''' of the author. --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 22:44, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Francesco, I do know moral rights ;) The Berne convention is a generic formulation of moral rights, but it does not dictate how states implement it in practice, and implementations are widely varying. In French right at least, it is traditionnally the author who decides what prejudices his honor or reputation. Thus, making any modification to a work, even privately, can be forbidden by moral right ''if the author decides so''. One must understand that the moral right is viewed as a fundamental right of the author (at the same level as freedom of expression, for example). So courts usually interpret it in a manner very favorable to the author.<br />
:::Anyway, this not really the main subject here. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 23:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Daer Antoine, the Berne Covention isn't a generic formulation of moral right! :)))) In all the nations the author decides what prejudices his honor or reputation! :))) Ignorance in this matter is inexcusable: I study law and I think that you must understand that you don't know moral rights. You are confounding the right of integrity (a moral right) with the exclusive right to modification (an economic right). --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 00:06, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::(rewritten answer) Ok, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that modification ''always'' infringes moral right; I said it potentially infringes it. That's exactly what your excerpt of the Berne Convention says, by the way. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:03, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::: By the way, moral right is really off-topic in the original thread, so I think I'm gonna detach the whole sub-thread and put it elsewhere. <br />
::::: ...oh, and ''please'' avoid appeal to authority ("I study law"), thanks.... --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:55, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Sorry Antoine, but I'm not a stupid. :)<br />
You said:<br />
<br />
1. "The Berne convention is a generic formulation of moral rights": '''false'''.<br />
<br />
2. "In French right at least, it is traditionnally the author who decides what prejudices his honor or reputation": '''in all the countries!'''<br />
<br />
3. "In practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work": '''false'''<br />
<br />
4. "if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author": '''false''' (where is "potentially"???)<br />
<br />
I study law: this is only a fact. You can eliminate this topic and your errors, but you can eliminate your ignorance in matter. ;))) It seems that you don't accept the truth. Why?--[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 11:02, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::You are trying to split hairs.<br />
::::::1. Berne Convention is a generic formulation of moral rights (as well as other rights, of course - my wording was elliptic, but since you know the Berne Convention it seemed obvious that you were able to understand it)<br />
::::::2. If it's true in all countries, it's true in France, isn't it? (but it's not true in countries which ''don't have a moral right'', you know)<br />
::::::3. This is a simple matter of logic, you cannot exercise your moral right if you don't know something has happened to your work. ''How could you sue for something you don't know has happened?''<br />
::::::4. "Potentially" was implied by previous messages in the thread, where I explained that the author ''could'' sue for modification on the basis of moral right. To understand a message, it's often useful to read previous messages in the thread...<br />
::::::And why do you think I'm gonna eliminate the topic? That's ridiculous.<br />
::::::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:20, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Antoine, you are an '''incredible sophist'''! :-D Clap clap clap! I think that you prefer to kill a children rather than admit your evident errors. :-D End of thread for me. You have the last word. ;-) --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 14:54, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I like that statement ("you prefer kill a children rather than admit your evident errors"), although I don't know if it applies to me - honestly I've never thought about killing a children, perhaps I should give it a try. Thanks for the good laugh :-))<br />
:On a more serious note, perhaps I should be wary of sophistry indeed. Hmmm. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:01, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Portals ==<br />
<br />
I have no problem with the idea of portals in some sort of unofficial capacity and on this wiki. I think we should encourage it. However, placing the link it in the definition, at least as it has been suggested/worded here, makes me a little uneasy. -- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 17:18, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Could you be more specific about how it makes you uneasy, or just edit the description?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:35, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== God et al.==<br />
<br />
A couple of comments:<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 />
** This sounds off (the God bit -- which notion of a God), and the scare quotes on "their." I'd say something like "Copyright grants an author a monopoly on certain actions ..."<br />
* can the license require attribution be removed from any derived works? -- reagle</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=1648Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-05-05T22:26:47Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Recommendations */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
== Rewording Edit ==<br />
<br />
I submitted a relatively large change. While the diff itself may be big, especially in the preamble, but I don't think I've made significant changes to the tone of the content. As a result, I think it is probably alright coming this late.<br />
<br />
Here's a summary of the larger changes or set of changes that I made:<br />
<br />
I removed a number of "therefores", and a number of comma-separated clauses acting as parenthetical asides that I thought it could survive without. I tried to break up a few long sentences. This was all purely stylistic.<br />
<br />
I dropped the "in addition to a requirement of author attribution" from the preamble because it's clear without it (IMHO) and because it seems to qualify a statement about essential freedoms which we speak out against below. I think it's best to state clearly that there are essential freedoms and then there are some extra restrictions that do not in fact have an impact on these essential freedom. Attribution is one of these but need not be specially cases. This way it doesn't sound like an exception but an explanation that it is ''by definition'' free.<br />
<br />
In two paragraphs of the first three paragraphs there are these two lists:<br />
<br />
:artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents<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.<br />
<br />
They seem to be redundant so I've tried to reduce it to just one list where the the first list was.<br />
<br />
I've removed "regardless of their profession, their beliefs, their country of origin, or any other criteria" and just say "anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." I think it's just as clear and more general.<br />
<br />
I switched the strange switch into the second person in the paragraph with the god like creator. It read nice but was a jarring switch.<br />
<br />
I added a line or two mentioning that some licenses are also used purely to take away people's freedoms. ASCAP is a licensing organization. The last draft talks about licenses as if they are only used to give away freedom but they were first used to sell freedom in restrained ways.<br />
<br />
I was confused by the line: "Indeed, depending on the nature of the work, it may even be unethical to deny any of the enumerated freedoms above." It seems like our argument in this document is that it's always unethical, on some level, to restrict essential freedom. I think that this sort of confuses the issue and, in any case, don't add much where it was.<br />
<br />
I removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:This definition only covers freedom in terms of copyright law; usage of a work may be restricted by other laws.<br />
<br />
I guess I have two issues here. First, it's not clear what these other laws and this sounds very legalistic for a statement of principles. More importantly, it seems like we would want to oppose other types of freedoms articulated in other types of law as well. The FSD is useful in opposing patents just as well as copyright (which the overly forumlate OSD could not). I don't think it's necessary.<br />
<br />
I've removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:"Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work."<br />
<br />
Because I basically moved it into the list of essential freedoms above. There was already an example there and I think that this is important enough it's worth dealing with a little higher up in the document. I think it's now more clear and doesn't need to be mentioned below.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 02:01, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'll have another edit later. The main problem I have is with the changes in the first few paragraphs about "information goods". First, I don't like this phrase because it essentially adopts the language of information as property, a commodity. I find it somewhat amusing that you would choose this language given your objections to the word "content". ;-) I find the argument against attempts to equate information with physical property very persuasive, and am inclined to remove this phrase entirely from the document.<br />
<br />
: The second problem is with the change to the examples enumerated in the beginning. The ones chosen - "Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, .." - were chosen explicitly because the argument that ''these'' works should be free is strongest and most persuasive. Reworded, it essentially sounds like a declaration against copyright on "anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits". This can definitely not stay this way.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:54, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Sounds good. "Information goods" was clumsy and we're better off with out it.<br />
<br />
::I'm still worried by the list of things. We're suggestion, but not defining, the scope of the document here. Something to think about and work out in drafting period. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:36, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Fair Use ==<br />
<br />
Angela made the point that we should position our definition vs. the existing rights of fair use. This echoes some of the sentiments of Larry's response. So we should think about that before we take it live.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:09, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Made some further edits as per the above. Avoided explicitly mentioning fair use for now to avoid confusion, might add that later.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:28, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not entirely clear defining our position in regards to fair use should mean here. I'm concerned because (a) fair use is only in the US a few other countries. Some other juristictions have similar "fair dealing" law but there are important differences. It's also a balancing act left up to judges and can sometimes be very unclear. I'm also concerned because (b) fair use is a set of compromises that is supposed to balance what would be overly restricted copyright. Our argument here is that copyright ''is'' always overly restricted and that we need to not settle for fair use rights but for something more meaningful. Or am I completely off-base here? --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:44, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No, I think you're right. From an ethical perspective, I think that it is important that fair use rights are ''also'' protected and broadened, but I'm not sure if this belongs into this definition. For now, I have added the phrase "Only very limited freedoms are granted to others" to clarify that copyright is not absolute; perhaps that is sufficient.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 05:47, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I think an argument can be made that it is important that any definition expressly acknowledge fair use (US) or fair dealing (rest of the world) and/or any other exception or limitation to copyright law. This is because of recent judicial decisions that tend to find, for example, that one can contractually override exceptions to copyright law (such as reverse engineering). Thus, I think it could be important to clarify that licenses that satisfy the free content/expression definition are "fair use/fair dealing plus" and grant a layer of permissions in addition to and on top existing exceptions to copyright law. Happy to leave this up to community discussion, however.--[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 10:12, 1 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Fair use is not unified at all among countries, so referring to it in the definition would introduce uncertainty and complication (unless the definition also gives its own definition of fair use). Moreover, fair use is completely covered by the rights specified in the definition AFAIU. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:43, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I would submit that the issue of whether a specific acknowledgement that free licenses apply in addition to and on top of existing exceptions and limitations that exist at law should not be decided based on whether the term "fair use" is used or not. One can use the terminology that I have just used "exceptions and limitations at law." This encompasses jurisdictional differences. And it should not be the case that "fair use" or any other exceptions or limitations are covered by the rights specified in the definition. In fact, I would have thought that the entire point of free licenses is to carve out a space that exists beyond what is currently provided for by law. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 2:23, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Hi Mia. As far as I've understood you correctly, I don't agree. Your proposal doesn't encompass jurisdictional differences, it just ''hides'' them which is vastly different. If I read "exceptions and limitations at law", I don't know what the text is talking about because those exceptions and limitations are different depending on the jurisdiction. Consequently, the text has no normative value because people from different parts of the world will understand different things.<br />
<br />
:Let me stress it, because it is very important: ''the Definition should be totally independent of any local specifics''. There must be ''no international insecurity'' as to what legal system the definition is referring to when it is using a given expression. The obvious way to achieve this is to avoid any reference to regionally varying legal concepts (or only as a side note as is the case for moral rights; then fair use or legal exceptions to copyright might also be mentioned as a side note, not a constitutive part of the definition).<br />
<br />
:Please take example from the Free Software Definition: it is worded in terms which are clear for everyone in the world (assuming they speak English ;-)), it does not refer to any non-essential legal concept. Actually even the notion of copyright is not essential in the Free Software Definition: it is mentioned only as a common way of implementing the FSD, not as a constitutive part of the definition.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:05, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Effective Technical Measures ==<br />
<br />
In regards to the little back-and-forth about "effective technical measures." I now realize that you are using the term as a little legal term-of-art to distinguish between TPMs and things like formats or compression. However, I'm afraid it still blocks things like GPG/PGP encrypted email. I'm going to suggest a phrasing like, "technical measure designed to restrict the freedoms above from being exercised by the person to whom the work is distributed."<br />
<br />
This phrasing doesn't block things like encrypted email, compression, formats, etc. and doesn't require using a relatively obscure legal term. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:52, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Physical works (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: 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 />
:A requisite would be to replace "modified versions" with "modified copies". If one is allowed to make a "modified version" of a physical, autographic work of art, then the original is destroyed in the process. Not something we would like to encourage. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:02, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure we can really consider physical works to be covered by the definition: concepts like distribution, copying and modifications do not seem to really apply. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:50, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::You can read the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License]. It has been worded very carefully by artists and lawyers so that it ''does'' apply to physical works. The key is that there is a distinction between the ''original'' and ''copies''. Only ''copies'' can be distributed and modified (of course, this applies seamlessly in the digital world where any transmission of data is implicitly a copy). By recursivity, a ''copy'' becomes itself an ''original'' for the person who receives it, and can make ''copies of the copy'' (modified or not).<br />
<br />
:::All licenses need not be worded as carefully, but the Definition itself would be sub-optimal if its wording left this aspect onto the table.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:07, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::In which case I would note that when they say a ''copy'' they seem to be talking about a converting an original to a digital work for which the freedoms can then apply. The freedoms mentioned in the above license do not seem to apply to ''originals'' at all, in which case I would argue that Art Libre are really talking about digital works in their license and avoiding the whole question of physical works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:47, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::You understood wrongly. ''Copies'' in the Free Art License can be analog copies (e.g. you can make an analog copy of a painting, which gives you a different painting). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:50, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not sure it does: the license also talks about the freedom to modify copies which implies that the copies themselves must have the property of modifiability which, in my mind at least, implies they should be digital (certainly, painting copies would not seem to fall in this category). I'm not sure you can talk about free software/content freedoms in respect to non-software works without really talking about digital works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Modified copies means the modification can take place in the course of making the copy itself. Like if you make a parodic copy of Mona Lisa: you don't need to first make a verbatim copy and then modify it. However, you ''can'' modify a non-digital work (a painting, a piece of sculpture...). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:21, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the license authors should probably clarify that, the license seems to talk about the freedom to "modify the copies", but says nothing about the freedom to modify the reproduction process. Maybe the two things are the same thing but it would seem open to intepretation.<br />
::::::::As for modifying painting and sculptures, you are right, of course, you ''can'' modify physical works although it's not a freedom I think a lot of people would use for sculptures and it's a freedom generally implicit in physical property law: once you buy a painting or sculpture you are free to do what you like with it. OTOH, digital works need this freedom thanks to advent of things like DRM and non-modifiable file formats such as object code and PDFs. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Mmmh, you should not mix up physical property law and "intellectual property" law. Even if you bought the physical medium of an artwork, it doesn't give you the right to modify the work, because the "intellectual property" still belongs to the author (unless the rights were also granted or transferred by contract).<br />
:::::::::This is especially true in countries where the moral right of the author is protected by the law, by the way. In France, if you buy a painting and then decide to destroy or modify it, the author can sue you (and he will win). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]]<br />
::::::::::Have no fear, Antoine, I'm not mixing the two up at all and explicitly differentiated between them in my remarks above. My point was that when you purchase physical property you are implicitly free to what you like with it (i.e. modify it). That the Art Libre license makes reference to modification of copies seems to imply they are talking about digital works. But I think you didn't address all the points I made above.<br />
== Things which are not works of the mind ==<br />
<br />
The word "content" is good for non-material commons, but what about "material commons" like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information, "commons" in general?. They need also a "free/freedom" definition. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 02:13, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). It is not only a legal category, but also a philosophical one: creation of works - art works, software works, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. The additions you are proposing do not belong to this category. Trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message only destroys the meaning of the message and transforms it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful.<br />
<br />
:Of course, this does not preclude someone else from giving a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. Only, the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents. <br />
<br />
:(btw., this kind of thing probably belongs in a FAQ ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 02:27, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: Ok, I get your pragmatic point of view. But only one comment. Think about seeds like code: used, improved, copied, studied in the past by every generation. Now we are changing from a free model to a private model ([http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml Monsanto's Nightmare] and similar). I prefer to use the term [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons#Wider_usage_of_the_term Commons] that includes Free Content (non-material commons) and material commons. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 04:22, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I understand your opinion, and I could agree if we were trying to write a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing). But we are trying to write a Definition, which must be precise and based on firm (conceptual) ground ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:23, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Source code ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Erik_M%C3%B6ller]] said: 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.<br />
<br />
:The common position among the Free Art License people (not that I always agree with them ;-)) is that providing the source code is a subcase of allowing to study the work. They argue that the source code is necessary to study software, while there is no such necessity for works of art.<br />
<br />
:One could counter-argue that even if source code is not necessary to study a piece of non-software content, it is nonetheless very practical for doing modifications (the GNU GPL defines source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it").<br />
<br />
:Of course another problem is that some kinds a work do not allow any clear notion of source code. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:11, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::From my own perspective, as a representative of the [http://www.freeroleplay.org/ Free RPG Community] there are many examples where a source code is a real requirement. A pen-and-paper roleplaying game can be both an artistic work as well as a functional work. Roleplaying games can be converted into software computer games so source code can be required for this. Many players frequently make house rules and ammendments so access to source code is requisite for this - both to the rules and to the . There are so many reasons to have a source code even from just our narrow field.<br />
<br />
::This is quite aside from the fact that access to the source code of a free content work might be necessary not only to study the work, but to study how the work was put together. Trivially, this could mean as little as being able to examine a word processor document to see what fonts are being used, etc. A more important example could be being able to examine a layered image file to see how a image effect was put together.<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure which works you are referring to that do not have a clear notion of a source code: the only such works I am aware of are non-digital works in which case the other freedoms may not apply anyway (see my remarks above). Please see my remarks here for more infomation: [[Talk:Definition]] --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 00:00, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I fullheartedly agree that the distinction between artistic and functional works is a fallacy (I have already said this to various people, including RMS). That is why, in my opinion, the same broad freedoms should apply to free contents as well as free software (the wording of the definition can differ of course, and that's why we are here ;-)).<br />
<br />
:::As for freedom for physical works, you can read my answer to your remark ;-)) <br />
:::But even for digital works, can simple "transparent" binary data be considered the source code for everything? Let's say I have the WAV recording of a concert. What do the bytes tell me about how the guitarist played the strings of his instrument, or even what precise notes he played, with what effects etc.?<br />
<br />
:::Software writing is a symbolic activity (writing code is writing text according to certain conventions). As such, its representation as text (i.e. ASCII or Unicode bytes) is a perfect mirror of the way it functions. It is not necessarily the case with other types of works.<br />
<br />
:::But I do agree that access to some kind of "source code" is important in many cases. Complicated isn't it? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::It is indeed complicated and I'm glad you also disagree with RMS false distinction between "artistic", "functional" and "political" works.<br />
<br />
::::IMHO I always found the GPL definition of source code (BTW, why isn't the GPL listed as one of the free content licenses?) to be the simplest and most flexible. For example, when start talking about things such as music recordings, photographs, etc, in other words works that originate with physical objects, it is often better to apply the freedoms to the digital copies only. In your example, it is prohibitive to provide the recording studio, instruments, etc that produced the original work, but it is simple enough to provide the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", in other words, the uncompressed WAV files or the music in some other modifiable format of the digital copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:01, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem with source code in works of art is that it's always hard to determine what is source code. Look at flash movies made by jibjab.com: they use photos and drawings to create animated flash movies with words and music which usually are themselves derivative works. So what is source code? Original song with it's score? Original photos? Code they wrote using this or that program for creating flash animations? All of above? I'm not sure such a requirement will have a positive impact on culture. It is important to have an access to work without DRM restrictions. But asking an author for all the pieces he used in the process of creaton is not necessery and practical. There we have a problem of tools: most advanced programs for creating digital works are proprietary. Asking for a source code of a work is of little practical value if we do not have access for tools itself. Following that logic we could ask authors to use only free software tools what itself is a good thing, but this seems simply going too far. My opinion is, that source code is not necessity, much more important is using open formats whenever possible (and please note, that even now it's not easy if you create multimedia works). [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:24, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I couldn't disagree more strongly: from my own experience the freedom to modify or study a work is strongly predicated on having access to the source. Without the access to the source, these freedoms are meaningless license verbiage. Again, drawing from my own experiences in the pen-and-paper RPG world, the recent "open gaming movement" used the [http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Open Gaming License] was a (partial) copyleft license with no source requirement used to license the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying system (more popularly called the d20 System). The original d20 system documents whre provided in a modifiable format. However, without the source requirement downstream publishers simply published derivative works in PDFs and hardcopies only, effectively creating a dead-end for the works, taking from the commons but not giving back to it.<br />
<br />
::::I also dispute that it isn't clear what the source code is: the GPL clearly defines this as "preferred form of the work for making modifications" which, in the cases you mention above, obviously resolves the issue for the sources of digital works. In the case of the flash animation, the source is clearly the original SWF file, the image file is its own source, and I don't see an amiguity over that (whether requirements to provide all the elements used to compose a work should also be needed is a seperate discussion).<br />
<br />
::::The argument regarding properietary programs also seems spurious: in the software world not all compilers are free software, cheap or easy to access but that doesn't have any bearing on whether you license software written for these compilers as free software. Whether requiring free software tools for free content is a completely seperate discussion. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:34, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ricardo, what you say is "in case of works of art source code means open format". Thus basically what we have to say is very similar, we define terminology differently. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 12:10, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::That's interesting, please expand on your definition of open format: do you think the issue can be resolved by simply requiring publication in open formats, such as ODT? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:30, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::AFAIK, the common definition of open format is a format which is openly documented and (preferably) unencumbered by patents. It is insufficient w.r.t. your criteria, because by this definition PDF and Postcript are open formats (anyone can read and implement the [http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html PDF specification]). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:15, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Please note, that sometimes also formats under "reasonable and non-discriminatory license" (RAND) are treated as open, which is a big lie. I'm not sure what status PDF and Postcript have, but it seems that they are simply free. Why it is hard to extract data from PDF? I'm trying to understand in what situation open format is not enough, maybe i'm missing something. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 18:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::As Antoine clarified, an open format requirement is fine, but more important is a modifiable, source code format. The problem with PDF and Postscript is that it is possible extract source-like information from the file, but, like software object code, I believe it's tricky and lossy. Can someone who is more familiar with PDF clarify/verify this? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 18:58, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::The "problem" (actually an understandable design decision) with PDF is that it does not have any notion of textual content (let alone semantic structure). It is a purely graphical rendering language. Say you have text "FOO BAR" in a PDF, the PDF code actually says "render letter F at centimeters (15.34,24.12), render letter O at centimeters (16.78,24.12)", etc. So even a "simple" task like extracting raw text from a PDF needs heuristics to distinguish words, paragraphs, etc. (I had the pleasure of trying to do this in pure PHP and actually get 90% good results for many documents ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:12, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::So there is no problem. It's lot like a comic strip: PDF is a text in a hostile (graphic) envirement. But if this is authors will, it's OK. We can't outlaw comic strips, right?[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:33, 3 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
::::::::Who said anything about outlawing comic strips or PDF? I'm talking about allowing people the freedom to distribute PDFs, provided that they also supply the original, structured source document which rendered the PDF. The issue here is that its a non trivial task to modify or reverse engineer PDFs. Distributing in only non-modifiable formats (such as PDF or Flash) renders the freedom to modify the work impossible to use, and therefore meaningless. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:53, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My fault, bad wording. I should talk about declaring non-free, not outlawing (tried to use a metaphore and considerably failed :-) I think you are wrong about this issue. In culture there is always some kind of source code one level deeper. If you have digitally animated movie you have compressed file good for internet sharing, than not-compressed file, analog copies for theater screenings, than you have all the code, background rendering and heroes of your story in polygons or whatever. Without all that it's hard to make some kinds of derivative works, but other kinds are perfectly possible even with low-quality internet clip. In a long run this doesn't really matter. It's the law what is important and lack of any kinds of DRM, not a format characteristic by itself. Printed book is extremely non-modifiable kind of format, but i will not declare all printed works not-free because of that. To copy a book - yes, it is tricky, you need special machines for that, scanners and OCR. But you can do it, legally and practicaly. The same applies to PDF (print it, scan it, OCR it, done), and in 5, 10 or 50 years it will be the same with video or multimedia content.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:49, 4 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
:::::::Again, who said anything about declaring hard copy books as non-free? Provided the source files are freely distributed for the book the book can be free! Also your point about copying a book is invalid: The situation is very similar to using a decompiler to reverse engineer object code: both processes are highly lossy and difficult which is why the FSF made source code a predicate for free software, and which is why we should do the same for free content.<br />
<br />
:::::::As I stated above, publishing in a non-modifiable format such as hard copy print or PDF only renders the freedom to modify and study a work meaningless. You either consider the freedom to modify to be as important as the other freedoms (read/display, copy, etc) and we should require a source copy where appropriate or you would prefer they not be exercised in certain situations, in which case this you should explain why you think it is subordinate to the other freedoms and "author's will". --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:52, 5 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think you make a mistake when you think about freedom only in a digital envirement. When i say about "authors will" i think for example about art-books - individually crafted, unique hard copy books. As long as it is posible to someone who obtained such a book to make a scan and publish it and make derivatie works i will consider the book free. You not, because it's author have chosen deliberately a format (art form) not really suitable for any kind of digitalisation and manipulation. In this example to comply with a free license as you see it author of such a book has to create a completely different art object. That simply doesn't make sense. I do not agree that format characteristic rather than legal status of work and its medium makes a work non-free. This discussion gets lenghty, i suggest to wait and see what others have to say on this topic.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 00:07, 6 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
:::: Extracting anything from CVS is tricky, and any given video codec is lossy. We cant demand user friendliness, as well as we can't demand minimal resolution of a movie. My problem is different: what to do with flash, which obviously is not an open format. Are we to declare all flash works non-free by default? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 21:29, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Again, the discussion about requiring open/transparent formats is seperate to the discussion about requiring the source be distributed with free content. If you would like to discuss this second issue, please create a seperate heading for it. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:53, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I think this is strictly connected, see above[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:49, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't think I read anything about open/transparent sources in your above post. You can require source code without also requiring that source be open/transparent as well, so the two issues can be clearly seperated. Of more importance is whether we require source code and I would prefer to focus on that for the time being. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:52, 5 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free expression? ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: Free expression 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 />
== Right to use and perform ==<br />
<br />
Apparently the current definition takes as implicit the first freedom of free software (the right to use/execute).<br />
I suggest to make it explicit, because it allows to include "related rights" such as the right to perform (e.g. a play, a song...):<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. This includes all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I agree that the freedom to perform is important, especially with regard to creative works such as music and film/video, and should be made more explicit. Here is my suggestion:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to perform the work, or otherwise display it for any purpose:''' The work may be performed, broadcast, webcast, or displayed in any manner in public or private.<br />
<br />
I feel like "any use" as referred to above by [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] is a bit too broad here, but perhaps it would make sense to add the derived uses portion?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Elizabeth stark|Elizabeth stark]] 20:33, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I would advocate keeping the "freedom to use" in the freedom title as well ("use" meaning execute a program, watch a movie, etc.). It may be granted in most of today's legal systems, but the Definition should be independent from legal systems, and most readers won't know much about the law. So I think it's a healthy reminder.<br />
: Unless you think "use" is too broad a term. What problems could this entail? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:41, 5 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Right to study and apply the "information" ==<br />
<br />
I find the phrasing "study and apply the information" a bit confusing. The word "information" seems to imply that only the symbolic (e.g. textual) content of the work can be studied, not its inner workings or the nuances of its making. Also, as pointed elsewhere, "information" is really sterile.<br />
<br />
I would rephrase it:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and use the knowledge gained from the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:29, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Applying Knowledge ==<br />
<br />
First freedom now is worded as "the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it". This may however be a problem when you think about it in context of scientific research. Copyright is covering just a publication, but there may be (and usually are) also included other "IP" law such as patents. I understand "applying knowledge" as a very wide term. I'm not aware of any exisiting license which may guarantee that patents will be not used. However this is a very good statement if we want to describe our ideals.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 02:06, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I think it is an absolute fact that free content cannot be impeded by patents. We need to work towards a clearer distinction, I think, between expectations we have from the works which are called free content, and from the licenses which are used for free content. I don't need to use a complex license that has clauses about patents if that is never relevant to me. Similarly, regarding earlier discussions about source code, I don't need anything in my license about source code if I'm talking about an essentially transparent work such as an essay. So I think we need to work towards emphasizing this distinction more clearly, and then formulate precisely what expectations there are from a ''work'' that is considered free content.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: And maybe "freedom to study" is good enough as a license requirement? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 03:38, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: This is one of the cases where the absence of a clause restricting freedoms may already meet the requirements, I think. Generally, you're free to study and apply knowledge from a work, unless the terms under which you have done that restrict you from doing so. What I think is important, especially if we want this definition to be a superset of the free software definition, is that we make it clear that the work itself must be available in a format suitable for modification. Whether or not the license protects that state of transparency is optional.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:54, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Non-commercial not free? ==<br />
<br />
It seems very arbitrary to call popular non-commercial licenses such as CreativeCommons Attrbution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike non-free! I believe all current usages of the term free content or free license allow a non-commercial clause. Very little content will be free under this definition as few content creators allow other people to profit from their hard work without paying royalties. I see no reason why a license prohibiting the receiver from profiting from content he got for nothing can not be called free.<br />
<br />
In fact, I think CC A-NC-SA is the model minimum free license, as it makes use of most of the restriction clauses permitted here plus NonCommercial. This definition should allow non-commercial licenses to fall under this umbrella. The interests of Wikimedia can still be satisfied by saying only Comercial Free Content and Fair Use were allowed. Prohibiting the reuser from making profit serves to protect the free status of the content, thus justifying its use as a restriction in the license. [[User:59.94.2.232|59.94.2.232]] 06:55, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: You can find my thoughts on the Creative Commons NC licenses [http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC here]. The idea that any kind of commercial venture is an "evil" from which people must be "protected" is a highly fallacious one; indeed, it is exactly the commercial use of free content and free software that has enabled some of the most exciting projects today, ranging from the adoption of free software in large sections of industry to the integration of Wikipedia content into search engines, CD-ROMs, and existing lookup tools. ''Especially'' in a collaborative context, it is essential to grant this freedom from the start, as it is virtually impossible to get permission from any contributor to a wiki for a particular commercial use.<br />
<br />
: It is perfectly alright for authors and artists not to reliniquish rights in accordance with this definition. But the resulting works should not be called "free". There can be no compromise on the core freedoms in this definition. If anything, they may need to be expanded.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I think that the provision on free redistribution makes it quite impossible to simply "profit from others' hard work". If someone tried to derive unfair advantage from a work, then people are free to reject the offer and are very likely to find the work that the offer is based on under more reasonable terms. In fact, if a share-alike or copyleft clause is used, then you'd be likely to find whatever was added to the original work freely available too. NC clauses do nothing to prevent unfair usage, but will prevent many legit uses.--[[User:Kari Pahula|Kari Pahula]] 11:33, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Not to allow commercial re-use is a critical limitation, as Erik aptly pointed out in his essays, e.g. OpenSource-Jahrbuch 2006. So this content simply is NOT free. That's why Stallman does not support CC anymore, because the different models get to easily thrown into a single bucket altogether. The importance about the commercial clause is that some value-additions are ONLY possible in a commercial context, when it is possible to integrate the new content e.g. in Websites with advertisements, or sell packaged DVDs etc. To protect the idea of free it is enough to add Copyleft provisions. [[User:89.53.204.123|89.53.204.123]] 17:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: There is no such thing as simply profiting from others hard work. You can propagate, advertise and store their work, but these are all of benefit to the work's author (although this '''may''' require or at least be helped by the moral right of paternity). NC is a fundamental error, and the definition of NC is causing headaches. NC is another layer of permission culture, and is not Free. The FSF and DFSG freedom definitions require that work be allowed to be sold, so it is not true that they allow NC clauses. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:39, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: So - not surprisingly, I guess - I think that it is important to give some kind of recognition to those licenses that grant freedoms that are more flexible than an "all rights reserved" or "personal-use only" license. While I agree that it is not possible to accommodate those licenses within the current definition of "free" being debated here, I do think that these can and should be classified under a different brand of licenses that enable important freedoms that are palatable to different industries than would contemplate a "free" license. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 18:09, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::The distinction between commercial and non-commercial also hinders the evolution of an open society where there is no commerial action anymore ;-) -- [[User:84.190.164.6|84.190.164.6]] 08:54, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Other Free Content Definitions ==<br />
<br />
A took the time to compile a list of other free content definitions, feel free to update: -- [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureDefinition Unoficial Free Culture UK Port of Stallman's Four Freedoms]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureGuidelines Unofficial Free Culture UK Port of the Debian Free Software Guidelines]<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content Wikipedia Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeroleplay.org/about Free RPG Community] (self-post)<br />
<br />
Edited & added fc-uk definitions --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Recommendations ==<br />
<br />
I see license compatibility as a freedom, too. The more standarised they are the more works can be combined and reused. This is crucial for a free culture movement: we have to avoid balkanisation. I suggest changing reccomendation section to reflect that threat. I believe giving recommendations for CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses (they are most popular) for all publicatons and art, and GFDL (Wikipedia standard) for reference content and textbooks. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:22, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure recommandations are our concern, apart from telling which licenses satisfy to the definition. I'd rather have a characterization of licenses and let people choose (see my proposal on the [[Talk:Licenses]] page). Also, popularity is not a sufficient metric IMHO ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:17, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Popularity doesn't matter when we think about freedom, but once we settle with that it's all we should take care about :) I do not think that recommendations should be a basic part of definition, but hey, this what people will look for! Sorry for being pragmatic, but i think we should also think about "net-effect" which works under free licenses may (or may not) create.<br />
<br />
==Moral right==<br />
<br />
This is a somewhat off-topic subthread about moral right. I put it here for reference, but we should find a way of putting offtopic or obsolete discussions elsewhere so as to keep a clean discussion page ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:03, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Mmm... I'm not at all sure about your point about moral rights and modifying sculptures and paintings. I don't know a lot about moral rights law, but surely that would only apply if you publicly distributed the work or used the author's name in relation to the modified work? So are we talking about the freedom to modify or the freedom to distribute? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 15:11, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:No, not only. Moral right includes the right to the integrity of the work, so if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author. Moral right considers that the work is part of the personality of the author. (of course, in practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: Dear Antoine, you don't know moral rights: [http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, '''which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation''']. If you modify a work, you infringe '''economic rights'''. You infringe moral rights only if your modification prejudices '''honor''' or '''reputation''' of the author. --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 22:44, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Francesco, I do know moral rights ;) The Berne convention is a generic formulation of moral rights, but it does not dictate how states implement it in practice, and implementations are widely varying. In French right at least, it is traditionnally the author who decides what prejudices his honor or reputation. Thus, making any modification to a work, even privately, can be forbidden by moral right ''if the author decides so''. One must understand that the moral right is viewed as a fundamental right of the author (at the same level as freedom of expression, for example). So courts usually interpret it in a manner very favorable to the author.<br />
:::Anyway, this not really the main subject here. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 23:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Daer Antoine, the Berne Covention isn't a generic formulation of moral right! :)))) In all the nations the author decides what prejudices his honor or reputation! :))) Ignorance in this matter is inexcusable: I study law and I think that you must understand that you don't know moral rights. You are confounding the right of integrity (a moral right) with the exclusive right to modification (an economic right). --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 00:06, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::(rewritten answer) Ok, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that modification ''always'' infringes moral right; I said it potentially infringes it. That's exactly what your excerpt of the Berne Convention says, by the way. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:03, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::: By the way, moral right is really off-topic in the original thread, so I think I'm gonna detach the whole sub-thread and put it elsewhere. <br />
::::: ...oh, and ''please'' avoid appeal to authority ("I study law"), thanks.... --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:55, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Sorry Antoine, but I'm not a stupid. :)<br />
You said:<br />
<br />
1. "The Berne convention is a generic formulation of moral rights": '''false'''.<br />
<br />
2. "In French right at least, it is traditionnally the author who decides what prejudices his honor or reputation": '''in all the countries!'''<br />
<br />
3. "In practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work": '''false'''<br />
<br />
4. "if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author": '''false''' (where is "potentially"???)<br />
<br />
I study law: this is only a fact. You can eliminate this topic and your errors, but you can eliminate your ignorance in matter. ;))) It seems that you don't accept the truth. Why?--[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 11:02, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::You are trying to split hairs.<br />
::::::1. Berne Convention is a generic formulation of moral rights (as well as other rights, of course - my wording was elliptic, but since you know the Berne Convention it seemed obvious that you were able to understand it)<br />
::::::2. If it's true in all countries, it's true in France, isn't it? (but it's not true in countries which ''don't have a moral right'', you know)<br />
::::::3. This is a simple matter of logic, you cannot exercise your moral right if you don't know something has happened to your work. ''How could you sue for something you don't know has happened?''<br />
::::::4. "Potentially" was implied by previous messages in the thread, where I explained that the author ''could'' sue for modification on the basis of moral right. To understand a message, it's often useful to read previous messages in the thread...<br />
::::::And why do you think I'm gonna eliminate the topic? That's ridiculous.<br />
::::::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:20, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Antoine, you are an '''incredible sophist'''! :-D Clap clap clap! I think that you prefer to kill a children rather than admit your evident errors. :-D End of thread for me. You have the last word. ;-) --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 14:54, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I like that statement ("you prefer kill a children rather than admit your evident errors"), although I don't know if it applies to me - honestly I've never thought about killing a children, perhaps I should give it a try. Thanks for the good laugh :-))<br />
:On a more serious note, perhaps I should be wary of sophistry indeed. Hmmm. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:01, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Portals ==<br />
<br />
I have no problem with the idea of portals in some sort of unofficial capacity and on this wiki. I think we should encourage it. However, placing the link it in the definition, at least as it has been suggested/worded here, makes me a little uneasy. -- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 17:18, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Could you be more specific about how it makes you uneasy, or just edit the description?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:35, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== God et al.==<br />
<br />
A couple of comments:<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 />
** This sounds off (the God bit -- which notion of a God), and the scare quotes on "their." I'd say something like "Copyright grants an author a monopoly on certain actions ..."<br />
* can the license require attribution be removed from any derived works? -- reagle</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=1647Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-05-05T22:08:54Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Source code */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
== Rewording Edit ==<br />
<br />
I submitted a relatively large change. While the diff itself may be big, especially in the preamble, but I don't think I've made significant changes to the tone of the content. As a result, I think it is probably alright coming this late.<br />
<br />
Here's a summary of the larger changes or set of changes that I made:<br />
<br />
I removed a number of "therefores", and a number of comma-separated clauses acting as parenthetical asides that I thought it could survive without. I tried to break up a few long sentences. This was all purely stylistic.<br />
<br />
I dropped the "in addition to a requirement of author attribution" from the preamble because it's clear without it (IMHO) and because it seems to qualify a statement about essential freedoms which we speak out against below. I think it's best to state clearly that there are essential freedoms and then there are some extra restrictions that do not in fact have an impact on these essential freedom. Attribution is one of these but need not be specially cases. This way it doesn't sound like an exception but an explanation that it is ''by definition'' free.<br />
<br />
In two paragraphs of the first three paragraphs there are these two lists:<br />
<br />
:artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents<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.<br />
<br />
They seem to be redundant so I've tried to reduce it to just one list where the the first list was.<br />
<br />
I've removed "regardless of their profession, their beliefs, their country of origin, or any other criteria" and just say "anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." I think it's just as clear and more general.<br />
<br />
I switched the strange switch into the second person in the paragraph with the god like creator. It read nice but was a jarring switch.<br />
<br />
I added a line or two mentioning that some licenses are also used purely to take away people's freedoms. ASCAP is a licensing organization. The last draft talks about licenses as if they are only used to give away freedom but they were first used to sell freedom in restrained ways.<br />
<br />
I was confused by the line: "Indeed, depending on the nature of the work, it may even be unethical to deny any of the enumerated freedoms above." It seems like our argument in this document is that it's always unethical, on some level, to restrict essential freedom. I think that this sort of confuses the issue and, in any case, don't add much where it was.<br />
<br />
I removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:This definition only covers freedom in terms of copyright law; usage of a work may be restricted by other laws.<br />
<br />
I guess I have two issues here. First, it's not clear what these other laws and this sounds very legalistic for a statement of principles. More importantly, it seems like we would want to oppose other types of freedoms articulated in other types of law as well. The FSD is useful in opposing patents just as well as copyright (which the overly forumlate OSD could not). I don't think it's necessary.<br />
<br />
I've removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:"Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work."<br />
<br />
Because I basically moved it into the list of essential freedoms above. There was already an example there and I think that this is important enough it's worth dealing with a little higher up in the document. I think it's now more clear and doesn't need to be mentioned below.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 02:01, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'll have another edit later. The main problem I have is with the changes in the first few paragraphs about "information goods". First, I don't like this phrase because it essentially adopts the language of information as property, a commodity. I find it somewhat amusing that you would choose this language given your objections to the word "content". ;-) I find the argument against attempts to equate information with physical property very persuasive, and am inclined to remove this phrase entirely from the document.<br />
<br />
: The second problem is with the change to the examples enumerated in the beginning. The ones chosen - "Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, .." - were chosen explicitly because the argument that ''these'' works should be free is strongest and most persuasive. Reworded, it essentially sounds like a declaration against copyright on "anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits". This can definitely not stay this way.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:54, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Sounds good. "Information goods" was clumsy and we're better off with out it.<br />
<br />
::I'm still worried by the list of things. We're suggestion, but not defining, the scope of the document here. Something to think about and work out in drafting period. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:36, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Fair Use ==<br />
<br />
Angela made the point that we should position our definition vs. the existing rights of fair use. This echoes some of the sentiments of Larry's response. So we should think about that before we take it live.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:09, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Made some further edits as per the above. Avoided explicitly mentioning fair use for now to avoid confusion, might add that later.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:28, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not entirely clear defining our position in regards to fair use should mean here. I'm concerned because (a) fair use is only in the US a few other countries. Some other juristictions have similar "fair dealing" law but there are important differences. It's also a balancing act left up to judges and can sometimes be very unclear. I'm also concerned because (b) fair use is a set of compromises that is supposed to balance what would be overly restricted copyright. Our argument here is that copyright ''is'' always overly restricted and that we need to not settle for fair use rights but for something more meaningful. Or am I completely off-base here? --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:44, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No, I think you're right. From an ethical perspective, I think that it is important that fair use rights are ''also'' protected and broadened, but I'm not sure if this belongs into this definition. For now, I have added the phrase "Only very limited freedoms are granted to others" to clarify that copyright is not absolute; perhaps that is sufficient.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 05:47, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I think an argument can be made that it is important that any definition expressly acknowledge fair use (US) or fair dealing (rest of the world) and/or any other exception or limitation to copyright law. This is because of recent judicial decisions that tend to find, for example, that one can contractually override exceptions to copyright law (such as reverse engineering). Thus, I think it could be important to clarify that licenses that satisfy the free content/expression definition are "fair use/fair dealing plus" and grant a layer of permissions in addition to and on top existing exceptions to copyright law. Happy to leave this up to community discussion, however.--[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 10:12, 1 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Fair use is not unified at all among countries, so referring to it in the definition would introduce uncertainty and complication (unless the definition also gives its own definition of fair use). Moreover, fair use is completely covered by the rights specified in the definition AFAIU. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:43, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I would submit that the issue of whether a specific acknowledgement that free licenses apply in addition to and on top of existing exceptions and limitations that exist at law should not be decided based on whether the term "fair use" is used or not. One can use the terminology that I have just used "exceptions and limitations at law." This encompasses jurisdictional differences. And it should not be the case that "fair use" or any other exceptions or limitations are covered by the rights specified in the definition. In fact, I would have thought that the entire point of free licenses is to carve out a space that exists beyond what is currently provided for by law. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 2:23, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Hi Mia. As far as I've understood you correctly, I don't agree. Your proposal doesn't encompass jurisdictional differences, it just ''hides'' them which is vastly different. If I read "exceptions and limitations at law", I don't know what the text is talking about because those exceptions and limitations are different depending on the jurisdiction. Consequently, the text has no normative value because people from different parts of the world will understand different things.<br />
<br />
:Let me stress it, because it is very important: ''the Definition should be totally independent of any local specifics''. There must be ''no international insecurity'' as to what legal system the definition is referring to when it is using a given expression. The obvious way to achieve this is to avoid any reference to regionally varying legal concepts (or only as a side note as is the case for moral rights; then fair use or legal exceptions to copyright might also be mentioned as a side note, not a constitutive part of the definition).<br />
<br />
:Please take example from the Free Software Definition: it is worded in terms which are clear for everyone in the world (assuming they speak English ;-)), it does not refer to any non-essential legal concept. Actually even the notion of copyright is not essential in the Free Software Definition: it is mentioned only as a common way of implementing the FSD, not as a constitutive part of the definition.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:05, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Effective Technical Measures ==<br />
<br />
In regards to the little back-and-forth about "effective technical measures." I now realize that you are using the term as a little legal term-of-art to distinguish between TPMs and things like formats or compression. However, I'm afraid it still blocks things like GPG/PGP encrypted email. I'm going to suggest a phrasing like, "technical measure designed to restrict the freedoms above from being exercised by the person to whom the work is distributed."<br />
<br />
This phrasing doesn't block things like encrypted email, compression, formats, etc. and doesn't require using a relatively obscure legal term. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:52, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Physical works (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: 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 />
:A requisite would be to replace "modified versions" with "modified copies". If one is allowed to make a "modified version" of a physical, autographic work of art, then the original is destroyed in the process. Not something we would like to encourage. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:02, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure we can really consider physical works to be covered by the definition: concepts like distribution, copying and modifications do not seem to really apply. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:50, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::You can read the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License]. It has been worded very carefully by artists and lawyers so that it ''does'' apply to physical works. The key is that there is a distinction between the ''original'' and ''copies''. Only ''copies'' can be distributed and modified (of course, this applies seamlessly in the digital world where any transmission of data is implicitly a copy). By recursivity, a ''copy'' becomes itself an ''original'' for the person who receives it, and can make ''copies of the copy'' (modified or not).<br />
<br />
:::All licenses need not be worded as carefully, but the Definition itself would be sub-optimal if its wording left this aspect onto the table.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:07, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::In which case I would note that when they say a ''copy'' they seem to be talking about a converting an original to a digital work for which the freedoms can then apply. The freedoms mentioned in the above license do not seem to apply to ''originals'' at all, in which case I would argue that Art Libre are really talking about digital works in their license and avoiding the whole question of physical works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:47, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::You understood wrongly. ''Copies'' in the Free Art License can be analog copies (e.g. you can make an analog copy of a painting, which gives you a different painting). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:50, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not sure it does: the license also talks about the freedom to modify copies which implies that the copies themselves must have the property of modifiability which, in my mind at least, implies they should be digital (certainly, painting copies would not seem to fall in this category). I'm not sure you can talk about free software/content freedoms in respect to non-software works without really talking about digital works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Modified copies means the modification can take place in the course of making the copy itself. Like if you make a parodic copy of Mona Lisa: you don't need to first make a verbatim copy and then modify it. However, you ''can'' modify a non-digital work (a painting, a piece of sculpture...). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:21, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the license authors should probably clarify that, the license seems to talk about the freedom to "modify the copies", but says nothing about the freedom to modify the reproduction process. Maybe the two things are the same thing but it would seem open to intepretation.<br />
::::::::As for modifying painting and sculptures, you are right, of course, you ''can'' modify physical works although it's not a freedom I think a lot of people would use for sculptures and it's a freedom generally implicit in physical property law: once you buy a painting or sculpture you are free to do what you like with it. OTOH, digital works need this freedom thanks to advent of things like DRM and non-modifiable file formats such as object code and PDFs. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Mmmh, you should not mix up physical property law and "intellectual property" law. Even if you bought the physical medium of an artwork, it doesn't give you the right to modify the work, because the "intellectual property" still belongs to the author (unless the rights were also granted or transferred by contract).<br />
:::::::::This is especially true in countries where the moral right of the author is protected by the law, by the way. In France, if you buy a painting and then decide to destroy or modify it, the author can sue you (and he will win). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]]<br />
::::::::::Have no fear, Antoine, I'm not mixing the two up at all and explicitly differentiated between them in my remarks above. My point was that when you purchase physical property you are implicitly free to what you like with it (i.e. modify it). That the Art Libre license makes reference to modification of copies seems to imply they are talking about digital works. But I think you didn't address all the points I made above.<br />
== Things which are not works of the mind ==<br />
<br />
The word "content" is good for non-material commons, but what about "material commons" like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information, "commons" in general?. They need also a "free/freedom" definition. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 02:13, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). It is not only a legal category, but also a philosophical one: creation of works - art works, software works, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. The additions you are proposing do not belong to this category. Trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message only destroys the meaning of the message and transforms it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful.<br />
<br />
:Of course, this does not preclude someone else from giving a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. Only, the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents. <br />
<br />
:(btw., this kind of thing probably belongs in a FAQ ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 02:27, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: Ok, I get your pragmatic point of view. But only one comment. Think about seeds like code: used, improved, copied, studied in the past by every generation. Now we are changing from a free model to a private model ([http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml Monsanto's Nightmare] and similar). I prefer to use the term [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons#Wider_usage_of_the_term Commons] that includes Free Content (non-material commons) and material commons. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 04:22, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I understand your opinion, and I could agree if we were trying to write a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing). But we are trying to write a Definition, which must be precise and based on firm (conceptual) ground ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:23, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Source code ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Erik_M%C3%B6ller]] said: 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.<br />
<br />
:The common position among the Free Art License people (not that I always agree with them ;-)) is that providing the source code is a subcase of allowing to study the work. They argue that the source code is necessary to study software, while there is no such necessity for works of art.<br />
<br />
:One could counter-argue that even if source code is not necessary to study a piece of non-software content, it is nonetheless very practical for doing modifications (the GNU GPL defines source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it").<br />
<br />
:Of course another problem is that some kinds a work do not allow any clear notion of source code. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:11, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::From my own perspective, as a representative of the [http://www.freeroleplay.org/ Free RPG Community] there are many examples where a source code is a real requirement. A pen-and-paper roleplaying game can be both an artistic work as well as a functional work. Roleplaying games can be converted into software computer games so source code can be required for this. Many players frequently make house rules and ammendments so access to source code is requisite for this - both to the rules and to the . There are so many reasons to have a source code even from just our narrow field.<br />
<br />
::This is quite aside from the fact that access to the source code of a free content work might be necessary not only to study the work, but to study how the work was put together. Trivially, this could mean as little as being able to examine a word processor document to see what fonts are being used, etc. A more important example could be being able to examine a layered image file to see how a image effect was put together.<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure which works you are referring to that do not have a clear notion of a source code: the only such works I am aware of are non-digital works in which case the other freedoms may not apply anyway (see my remarks above). Please see my remarks here for more infomation: [[Talk:Definition]] --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 00:00, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I fullheartedly agree that the distinction between artistic and functional works is a fallacy (I have already said this to various people, including RMS). That is why, in my opinion, the same broad freedoms should apply to free contents as well as free software (the wording of the definition can differ of course, and that's why we are here ;-)).<br />
<br />
:::As for freedom for physical works, you can read my answer to your remark ;-)) <br />
:::But even for digital works, can simple "transparent" binary data be considered the source code for everything? Let's say I have the WAV recording of a concert. What do the bytes tell me about how the guitarist played the strings of his instrument, or even what precise notes he played, with what effects etc.?<br />
<br />
:::Software writing is a symbolic activity (writing code is writing text according to certain conventions). As such, its representation as text (i.e. ASCII or Unicode bytes) is a perfect mirror of the way it functions. It is not necessarily the case with other types of works.<br />
<br />
:::But I do agree that access to some kind of "source code" is important in many cases. Complicated isn't it? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::It is indeed complicated and I'm glad you also disagree with RMS false distinction between "artistic", "functional" and "political" works.<br />
<br />
::::IMHO I always found the GPL definition of source code (BTW, why isn't the GPL listed as one of the free content licenses?) to be the simplest and most flexible. For example, when start talking about things such as music recordings, photographs, etc, in other words works that originate with physical objects, it is often better to apply the freedoms to the digital copies only. In your example, it is prohibitive to provide the recording studio, instruments, etc that produced the original work, but it is simple enough to provide the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", in other words, the uncompressed WAV files or the music in some other modifiable format of the digital copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:01, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem with source code in works of art is that it's always hard to determine what is source code. Look at flash movies made by jibjab.com: they use photos and drawings to create animated flash movies with words and music which usually are themselves derivative works. So what is source code? Original song with it's score? Original photos? Code they wrote using this or that program for creating flash animations? All of above? I'm not sure such a requirement will have a positive impact on culture. It is important to have an access to work without DRM restrictions. But asking an author for all the pieces he used in the process of creaton is not necessery and practical. There we have a problem of tools: most advanced programs for creating digital works are proprietary. Asking for a source code of a work is of little practical value if we do not have access for tools itself. Following that logic we could ask authors to use only free software tools what itself is a good thing, but this seems simply going too far. My opinion is, that source code is not necessity, much more important is using open formats whenever possible (and please note, that even now it's not easy if you create multimedia works). [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:24, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I couldn't disagree more strongly: from my own experience the freedom to modify or study a work is strongly predicated on having access to the source. Without the access to the source, these freedoms are meaningless license verbiage. Again, drawing from my own experiences in the pen-and-paper RPG world, the recent "open gaming movement" used the [http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Open Gaming License] was a (partial) copyleft license with no source requirement used to license the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying system (more popularly called the d20 System). The original d20 system documents whre provided in a modifiable format. However, without the source requirement downstream publishers simply published derivative works in PDFs and hardcopies only, effectively creating a dead-end for the works, taking from the commons but not giving back to it.<br />
<br />
::::I also dispute that it isn't clear what the source code is: the GPL clearly defines this as "preferred form of the work for making modifications" which, in the cases you mention above, obviously resolves the issue for the sources of digital works. In the case of the flash animation, the source is clearly the original SWF file, the image file is its own source, and I don't see an amiguity over that (whether requirements to provide all the elements used to compose a work should also be needed is a seperate discussion).<br />
<br />
::::The argument regarding properietary programs also seems spurious: in the software world not all compilers are free software, cheap or easy to access but that doesn't have any bearing on whether you license software written for these compilers as free software. Whether requiring free software tools for free content is a completely seperate discussion. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:34, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ricardo, what you say is "in case of works of art source code means open format". Thus basically what we have to say is very similar, we define terminology differently. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 12:10, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::That's interesting, please expand on your definition of open format: do you think the issue can be resolved by simply requiring publication in open formats, such as ODT? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:30, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::AFAIK, the common definition of open format is a format which is openly documented and (preferably) unencumbered by patents. It is insufficient w.r.t. your criteria, because by this definition PDF and Postcript are open formats (anyone can read and implement the [http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html PDF specification]). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:15, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Please note, that sometimes also formats under "reasonable and non-discriminatory license" (RAND) are treated as open, which is a big lie. I'm not sure what status PDF and Postcript have, but it seems that they are simply free. Why it is hard to extract data from PDF? I'm trying to understand in what situation open format is not enough, maybe i'm missing something. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 18:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::As Antoine clarified, an open format requirement is fine, but more important is a modifiable, source code format. The problem with PDF and Postscript is that it is possible extract source-like information from the file, but, like software object code, I believe it's tricky and lossy. Can someone who is more familiar with PDF clarify/verify this? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 18:58, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::The "problem" (actually an understandable design decision) with PDF is that it does not have any notion of textual content (let alone semantic structure). It is a purely graphical rendering language. Say you have text "FOO BAR" in a PDF, the PDF code actually says "render letter F at centimeters (15.34,24.12), render letter O at centimeters (16.78,24.12)", etc. So even a "simple" task like extracting raw text from a PDF needs heuristics to distinguish words, paragraphs, etc. (I had the pleasure of trying to do this in pure PHP and actually get 90% good results for many documents ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:12, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::So there is no problem. It's lot like a comic strip: PDF is a text in a hostile (graphic) envirement. But if this is authors will, it's OK. We can't outlaw comic strips, right?[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:33, 3 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
::::::::Who said anything about outlawing comic strips or PDF? I'm talking about allowing people the freedom to distribute PDFs, provided that they also supply the original, structured source document which rendered the PDF. The issue here is that its a non trivial task to modify or reverse engineer PDFs. Distributing in only non-modifiable formats (such as PDF or Flash) renders the freedom to modify the work impossible to use, and therefore meaningless. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:53, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My fault, bad wording. I should talk about declaring non-free, not outlawing (tried to use a metaphore and considerably failed :-) I think you are wrong about this issue. In culture there is always some kind of source code one level deeper. If you have digitally animated movie you have compressed file good for internet sharing, than not-compressed file, analog copies for theater screenings, than you have all the code, background rendering and heroes of your story in polygons or whatever. Without all that it's hard to make some kinds of derivative works, but other kinds are perfectly possible even with low-quality internet clip. In a long run this doesn't really matter. It's the law what is important and lack of any kinds of DRM, not a format characteristic by itself. Printed book is extremely non-modifiable kind of format, but i will not declare all printed works not-free because of that. To copy a book - yes, it is tricky, you need special machines for that, scanners and OCR. But you can do it, legally and practicaly. The same applies to PDF (print it, scan it, OCR it, done), and in 5, 10 or 50 years it will be the same with video or multimedia content.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:49, 4 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
:::::::Again, who said anything about declaring hard copy books as non-free? Provided the source files are freely distributed for the book the book can be free! Also your point about copying a book is invalid: The situation is very similar to using a decompiler to reverse engineer object code: both processes are highly lossy and difficult which is why the FSF made source code a predicate for free software, and which is why we should do the same for free content.<br />
<br />
:::::::As I stated above, publishing in a non-modifiable format such as hard copy print or PDF only renders the freedom to modify and study a work meaningless. You either consider the freedom to modify to be as important as the other freedoms (read/display, copy, etc) and we should require a source copy where appropriate or you would prefer they not be exercised in certain situations, in which case this you should explain why you think it is subordinate to the other freedoms and "author's will". --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:52, 5 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think you make a mistake when you think about freedom only in a digital envirement. When i say about "authors will" i think for example about art-books - individually crafted, unique hard copy books. As long as it is posible to someone who obtained such a book to make a scan and publish it and make derivatie works i will consider the book free. You not, because it's author have chosen deliberately a format (art form) not really suitable for any kind of digitalisation and manipulation. In this example to comply with a free license as you see it author of such a book has to create a completely different art object. That simply doesn't make sense. I do not agree that format characteristic rather than legal status of work and its medium makes a work non-free. This discussion gets lenghty, i suggest to wait and see what others have to say on this topic.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 00:07, 6 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
:::: Extracting anything from CVS is tricky, and any given video codec is lossy. We cant demand user friendliness, as well as we can't demand minimal resolution of a movie. My problem is different: what to do with flash, which obviously is not an open format. Are we to declare all flash works non-free by default? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 21:29, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Again, the discussion about requiring open/transparent formats is seperate to the discussion about requiring the source be distributed with free content. If you would like to discuss this second issue, please create a seperate heading for it. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:53, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I think this is strictly connected, see above[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:49, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't think I read anything about open/transparent sources in your above post. You can require source code without also requiring that source be open/transparent as well, so the two issues can be clearly seperated. Of more importance is whether we require source code and I would prefer to focus on that for the time being. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:52, 5 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free expression? ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: Free expression 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 />
== Right to use and perform ==<br />
<br />
Apparently the current definition takes as implicit the first freedom of free software (the right to use/execute).<br />
I suggest to make it explicit, because it allows to include "related rights" such as the right to perform (e.g. a play, a song...):<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. This includes all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I agree that the freedom to perform is important, especially with regard to creative works such as music and film/video, and should be made more explicit. Here is my suggestion:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to perform the work, or otherwise display it for any purpose:''' The work may be performed, broadcast, webcast, or displayed in any manner in public or private.<br />
<br />
I feel like "any use" as referred to above by [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] is a bit too broad here, but perhaps it would make sense to add the derived uses portion?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Elizabeth stark|Elizabeth stark]] 20:33, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I would advocate keeping the "freedom to use" in the freedom title as well ("use" meaning execute a program, watch a movie, etc.). It may be granted in most of today's legal systems, but the Definition should be independent from legal systems, and most readers won't know much about the law. So I think it's a healthy reminder.<br />
: Unless you think "use" is too broad a term. What problems could this entail? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:41, 5 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Right to study and apply the "information" ==<br />
<br />
I find the phrasing "study and apply the information" a bit confusing. The word "information" seems to imply that only the symbolic (e.g. textual) content of the work can be studied, not its inner workings or the nuances of its making. Also, as pointed elsewhere, "information" is really sterile.<br />
<br />
I would rephrase it:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and use the knowledge gained from the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:29, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Applying Knowledge ==<br />
<br />
First freedom now is worded as "the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it". This may however be a problem when you think about it in context of scientific research. Copyright is covering just a publication, but there may be (and usually are) also included other "IP" law such as patents. I understand "applying knowledge" as a very wide term. I'm not aware of any exisiting license which may guarantee that patents will be not used. However this is a very good statement if we want to describe our ideals.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 02:06, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I think it is an absolute fact that free content cannot be impeded by patents. We need to work towards a clearer distinction, I think, between expectations we have from the works which are called free content, and from the licenses which are used for free content. I don't need to use a complex license that has clauses about patents if that is never relevant to me. Similarly, regarding earlier discussions about source code, I don't need anything in my license about source code if I'm talking about an essentially transparent work such as an essay. So I think we need to work towards emphasizing this distinction more clearly, and then formulate precisely what expectations there are from a ''work'' that is considered free content.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: And maybe "freedom to study" is good enough as a license requirement? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 03:38, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: This is one of the cases where the absence of a clause restricting freedoms may already meet the requirements, I think. Generally, you're free to study and apply knowledge from a work, unless the terms under which you have done that restrict you from doing so. What I think is important, especially if we want this definition to be a superset of the free software definition, is that we make it clear that the work itself must be available in a format suitable for modification. Whether or not the license protects that state of transparency is optional.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:54, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Non-commercial not free? ==<br />
<br />
It seems very arbitrary to call popular non-commercial licenses such as CreativeCommons Attrbution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike non-free! I believe all current usages of the term free content or free license allow a non-commercial clause. Very little content will be free under this definition as few content creators allow other people to profit from their hard work without paying royalties. I see no reason why a license prohibiting the receiver from profiting from content he got for nothing can not be called free.<br />
<br />
In fact, I think CC A-NC-SA is the model minimum free license, as it makes use of most of the restriction clauses permitted here plus NonCommercial. This definition should allow non-commercial licenses to fall under this umbrella. The interests of Wikimedia can still be satisfied by saying only Comercial Free Content and Fair Use were allowed. Prohibiting the reuser from making profit serves to protect the free status of the content, thus justifying its use as a restriction in the license. [[User:59.94.2.232|59.94.2.232]] 06:55, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: You can find my thoughts on the Creative Commons NC licenses [http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC here]. The idea that any kind of commercial venture is an "evil" from which people must be "protected" is a highly fallacious one; indeed, it is exactly the commercial use of free content and free software that has enabled some of the most exciting projects today, ranging from the adoption of free software in large sections of industry to the integration of Wikipedia content into search engines, CD-ROMs, and existing lookup tools. ''Especially'' in a collaborative context, it is essential to grant this freedom from the start, as it is virtually impossible to get permission from any contributor to a wiki for a particular commercial use.<br />
<br />
: It is perfectly alright for authors and artists not to reliniquish rights in accordance with this definition. But the resulting works should not be called "free". There can be no compromise on the core freedoms in this definition. If anything, they may need to be expanded.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I think that the provision on free redistribution makes it quite impossible to simply "profit from others' hard work". If someone tried to derive unfair advantage from a work, then people are free to reject the offer and are very likely to find the work that the offer is based on under more reasonable terms. In fact, if a share-alike or copyleft clause is used, then you'd be likely to find whatever was added to the original work freely available too. NC clauses do nothing to prevent unfair usage, but will prevent many legit uses.--[[User:Kari Pahula|Kari Pahula]] 11:33, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Not to allow commercial re-use is a critical limitation, as Erik aptly pointed out in his essays, e.g. OpenSource-Jahrbuch 2006. So this content simply is NOT free. That's why Stallman does not support CC anymore, because the different models get to easily thrown into a single bucket altogether. The importance about the commercial clause is that some value-additions are ONLY possible in a commercial context, when it is possible to integrate the new content e.g. in Websites with advertisements, or sell packaged DVDs etc. To protect the idea of free it is enough to add Copyleft provisions. [[User:89.53.204.123|89.53.204.123]] 17:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: There is no such thing as simply profiting from others hard work. You can propagate, advertise and store their work, but these are all of benefit to the work's author (although this '''may''' require or at least be helped by the moral right of paternity). NC is a fundamental error, and the definition of NC is causing headaches. NC is another layer of permission culture, and is not Free. The FSF and DFSG freedom definitions require that work be allowed to be sold, so it is not true that they allow NC clauses. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:39, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: So - not surprisingly, I guess - I think that it is important to give some kind of recognition to those licenses that grant freedoms that are more flexible than an "all rights reserved" or "personal-use only" license. While I agree that it is not possible to accommodate those licenses within the current definition of "free" being debated here, I do think that these can and should be classified under a different brand of licenses that enable important freedoms that are palatable to different industries than would contemplate a "free" license. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 18:09, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::The distinction between commercial and non-commercial also hinders the evolution of an open society where there is no commerial action anymore ;-) -- [[User:84.190.164.6|84.190.164.6]] 08:54, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Other Free Content Definitions ==<br />
<br />
A took the time to compile a list of other free content definitions, feel free to update: -- [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureDefinition Unoficial Free Culture UK Port of Stallman's Four Freedoms]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureGuidelines Unofficial Free Culture UK Port of the Debian Free Software Guidelines]<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content Wikipedia Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeroleplay.org/about Free RPG Community] (self-post)<br />
<br />
Edited & added fc-uk definitions --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Recommendations ==<br />
<br />
I see license compatibility as a freedom, too. The more standarised they are the more works can be combined and reused. This is crucial for a free culture movement: we have to avoid balkanisation. I suggest changing reccomendation section to reflect that threat. I believe giving recommendations for CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses (they are most popular) for all publicatons and art, and GFDL (Wikipedia standard) for reference content and textbooks. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:22, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure recommandations are our concern, apart from telling which licenses satisfy to the definition. I'd rather have a characterization of licenses and let people choose (see my proposal on the [[Talk:Licenses]] page). Also, popularity is not a sufficient metric IMHO ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:17, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Moral right==<br />
<br />
This is a somewhat off-topic subthread about moral right. I put it here for reference, but we should find a way of putting offtopic or obsolete discussions elsewhere so as to keep a clean discussion page ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:03, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Mmm... I'm not at all sure about your point about moral rights and modifying sculptures and paintings. I don't know a lot about moral rights law, but surely that would only apply if you publicly distributed the work or used the author's name in relation to the modified work? So are we talking about the freedom to modify or the freedom to distribute? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 15:11, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:No, not only. Moral right includes the right to the integrity of the work, so if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author. Moral right considers that the work is part of the personality of the author. (of course, in practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: Dear Antoine, you don't know moral rights: [http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, '''which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation''']. If you modify a work, you infringe '''economic rights'''. You infringe moral rights only if your modification prejudices '''honor''' or '''reputation''' of the author. --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 22:44, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Francesco, I do know moral rights ;) The Berne convention is a generic formulation of moral rights, but it does not dictate how states implement it in practice, and implementations are widely varying. In French right at least, it is traditionnally the author who decides what prejudices his honor or reputation. Thus, making any modification to a work, even privately, can be forbidden by moral right ''if the author decides so''. One must understand that the moral right is viewed as a fundamental right of the author (at the same level as freedom of expression, for example). So courts usually interpret it in a manner very favorable to the author.<br />
:::Anyway, this not really the main subject here. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 23:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Daer Antoine, the Berne Covention isn't a generic formulation of moral right! :)))) In all the nations the author decides what prejudices his honor or reputation! :))) Ignorance in this matter is inexcusable: I study law and I think that you must understand that you don't know moral rights. You are confounding the right of integrity (a moral right) with the exclusive right to modification (an economic right). --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 00:06, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::(rewritten answer) Ok, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that modification ''always'' infringes moral right; I said it potentially infringes it. That's exactly what your excerpt of the Berne Convention says, by the way. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:03, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::: By the way, moral right is really off-topic in the original thread, so I think I'm gonna detach the whole sub-thread and put it elsewhere. <br />
::::: ...oh, and ''please'' avoid appeal to authority ("I study law"), thanks.... --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:55, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Sorry Antoine, but I'm not a stupid. :)<br />
You said:<br />
<br />
1. "The Berne convention is a generic formulation of moral rights": '''false'''.<br />
<br />
2. "In French right at least, it is traditionnally the author who decides what prejudices his honor or reputation": '''in all the countries!'''<br />
<br />
3. "In practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work": '''false'''<br />
<br />
4. "if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author": '''false''' (where is "potentially"???)<br />
<br />
I study law: this is only a fact. You can eliminate this topic and your errors, but you can eliminate your ignorance in matter. ;))) It seems that you don't accept the truth. Why?--[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 11:02, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::You are trying to split hairs.<br />
::::::1. Berne Convention is a generic formulation of moral rights (as well as other rights, of course - my wording was elliptic, but since you know the Berne Convention it seemed obvious that you were able to understand it)<br />
::::::2. If it's true in all countries, it's true in France, isn't it? (but it's not true in countries which ''don't have a moral right'', you know)<br />
::::::3. This is a simple matter of logic, you cannot exercise your moral right if you don't know something has happened to your work. ''How could you sue for something you don't know has happened?''<br />
::::::4. "Potentially" was implied by previous messages in the thread, where I explained that the author ''could'' sue for modification on the basis of moral right. To understand a message, it's often useful to read previous messages in the thread...<br />
::::::And why do you think I'm gonna eliminate the topic? That's ridiculous.<br />
::::::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:20, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Antoine, you are an '''incredible sophist'''! :-D Clap clap clap! I think that you prefer to kill a children rather than admit your evident errors. :-D End of thread for me. You have the last word. ;-) --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 14:54, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I like that statement ("you prefer kill a children rather than admit your evident errors"), although I don't know if it applies to me - honestly I've never thought about killing a children, perhaps I should give it a try. Thanks for the good laugh :-))<br />
:On a more serious note, perhaps I should be wary of sophistry indeed. Hmmm. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:01, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Portals ==<br />
<br />
I have no problem with the idea of portals in some sort of unofficial capacity and on this wiki. I think we should encourage it. However, placing the link it in the definition, at least as it has been suggested/worded here, makes me a little uneasy. -- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 17:18, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Could you be more specific about how it makes you uneasy, or just edit the description?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:35, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== God et al.==<br />
<br />
A couple of comments:<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 />
** This sounds off (the God bit -- which notion of a God), and the scare quotes on "their." I'd say something like "Copyright grants an author a monopoly on certain actions ..."<br />
* can the license require attribution be removed from any derived works? -- reagle</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=1646Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-05-05T22:07:52Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Source code */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
== Rewording Edit ==<br />
<br />
I submitted a relatively large change. While the diff itself may be big, especially in the preamble, but I don't think I've made significant changes to the tone of the content. As a result, I think it is probably alright coming this late.<br />
<br />
Here's a summary of the larger changes or set of changes that I made:<br />
<br />
I removed a number of "therefores", and a number of comma-separated clauses acting as parenthetical asides that I thought it could survive without. I tried to break up a few long sentences. This was all purely stylistic.<br />
<br />
I dropped the "in addition to a requirement of author attribution" from the preamble because it's clear without it (IMHO) and because it seems to qualify a statement about essential freedoms which we speak out against below. I think it's best to state clearly that there are essential freedoms and then there are some extra restrictions that do not in fact have an impact on these essential freedom. Attribution is one of these but need not be specially cases. This way it doesn't sound like an exception but an explanation that it is ''by definition'' free.<br />
<br />
In two paragraphs of the first three paragraphs there are these two lists:<br />
<br />
:artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents<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.<br />
<br />
They seem to be redundant so I've tried to reduce it to just one list where the the first list was.<br />
<br />
I've removed "regardless of their profession, their beliefs, their country of origin, or any other criteria" and just say "anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." I think it's just as clear and more general.<br />
<br />
I switched the strange switch into the second person in the paragraph with the god like creator. It read nice but was a jarring switch.<br />
<br />
I added a line or two mentioning that some licenses are also used purely to take away people's freedoms. ASCAP is a licensing organization. The last draft talks about licenses as if they are only used to give away freedom but they were first used to sell freedom in restrained ways.<br />
<br />
I was confused by the line: "Indeed, depending on the nature of the work, it may even be unethical to deny any of the enumerated freedoms above." It seems like our argument in this document is that it's always unethical, on some level, to restrict essential freedom. I think that this sort of confuses the issue and, in any case, don't add much where it was.<br />
<br />
I removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:This definition only covers freedom in terms of copyright law; usage of a work may be restricted by other laws.<br />
<br />
I guess I have two issues here. First, it's not clear what these other laws and this sounds very legalistic for a statement of principles. More importantly, it seems like we would want to oppose other types of freedoms articulated in other types of law as well. The FSD is useful in opposing patents just as well as copyright (which the overly forumlate OSD could not). I don't think it's necessary.<br />
<br />
I've removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:"Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work."<br />
<br />
Because I basically moved it into the list of essential freedoms above. There was already an example there and I think that this is important enough it's worth dealing with a little higher up in the document. I think it's now more clear and doesn't need to be mentioned below.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 02:01, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'll have another edit later. The main problem I have is with the changes in the first few paragraphs about "information goods". First, I don't like this phrase because it essentially adopts the language of information as property, a commodity. I find it somewhat amusing that you would choose this language given your objections to the word "content". ;-) I find the argument against attempts to equate information with physical property very persuasive, and am inclined to remove this phrase entirely from the document.<br />
<br />
: The second problem is with the change to the examples enumerated in the beginning. The ones chosen - "Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, .." - were chosen explicitly because the argument that ''these'' works should be free is strongest and most persuasive. Reworded, it essentially sounds like a declaration against copyright on "anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits". This can definitely not stay this way.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:54, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Sounds good. "Information goods" was clumsy and we're better off with out it.<br />
<br />
::I'm still worried by the list of things. We're suggestion, but not defining, the scope of the document here. Something to think about and work out in drafting period. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:36, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Fair Use ==<br />
<br />
Angela made the point that we should position our definition vs. the existing rights of fair use. This echoes some of the sentiments of Larry's response. So we should think about that before we take it live.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:09, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Made some further edits as per the above. Avoided explicitly mentioning fair use for now to avoid confusion, might add that later.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:28, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not entirely clear defining our position in regards to fair use should mean here. I'm concerned because (a) fair use is only in the US a few other countries. Some other juristictions have similar "fair dealing" law but there are important differences. It's also a balancing act left up to judges and can sometimes be very unclear. I'm also concerned because (b) fair use is a set of compromises that is supposed to balance what would be overly restricted copyright. Our argument here is that copyright ''is'' always overly restricted and that we need to not settle for fair use rights but for something more meaningful. Or am I completely off-base here? --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:44, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No, I think you're right. From an ethical perspective, I think that it is important that fair use rights are ''also'' protected and broadened, but I'm not sure if this belongs into this definition. For now, I have added the phrase "Only very limited freedoms are granted to others" to clarify that copyright is not absolute; perhaps that is sufficient.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 05:47, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I think an argument can be made that it is important that any definition expressly acknowledge fair use (US) or fair dealing (rest of the world) and/or any other exception or limitation to copyright law. This is because of recent judicial decisions that tend to find, for example, that one can contractually override exceptions to copyright law (such as reverse engineering). Thus, I think it could be important to clarify that licenses that satisfy the free content/expression definition are "fair use/fair dealing plus" and grant a layer of permissions in addition to and on top existing exceptions to copyright law. Happy to leave this up to community discussion, however.--[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 10:12, 1 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Fair use is not unified at all among countries, so referring to it in the definition would introduce uncertainty and complication (unless the definition also gives its own definition of fair use). Moreover, fair use is completely covered by the rights specified in the definition AFAIU. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:43, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I would submit that the issue of whether a specific acknowledgement that free licenses apply in addition to and on top of existing exceptions and limitations that exist at law should not be decided based on whether the term "fair use" is used or not. One can use the terminology that I have just used "exceptions and limitations at law." This encompasses jurisdictional differences. And it should not be the case that "fair use" or any other exceptions or limitations are covered by the rights specified in the definition. In fact, I would have thought that the entire point of free licenses is to carve out a space that exists beyond what is currently provided for by law. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 2:23, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Hi Mia. As far as I've understood you correctly, I don't agree. Your proposal doesn't encompass jurisdictional differences, it just ''hides'' them which is vastly different. If I read "exceptions and limitations at law", I don't know what the text is talking about because those exceptions and limitations are different depending on the jurisdiction. Consequently, the text has no normative value because people from different parts of the world will understand different things.<br />
<br />
:Let me stress it, because it is very important: ''the Definition should be totally independent of any local specifics''. There must be ''no international insecurity'' as to what legal system the definition is referring to when it is using a given expression. The obvious way to achieve this is to avoid any reference to regionally varying legal concepts (or only as a side note as is the case for moral rights; then fair use or legal exceptions to copyright might also be mentioned as a side note, not a constitutive part of the definition).<br />
<br />
:Please take example from the Free Software Definition: it is worded in terms which are clear for everyone in the world (assuming they speak English ;-)), it does not refer to any non-essential legal concept. Actually even the notion of copyright is not essential in the Free Software Definition: it is mentioned only as a common way of implementing the FSD, not as a constitutive part of the definition.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:05, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Effective Technical Measures ==<br />
<br />
In regards to the little back-and-forth about "effective technical measures." I now realize that you are using the term as a little legal term-of-art to distinguish between TPMs and things like formats or compression. However, I'm afraid it still blocks things like GPG/PGP encrypted email. I'm going to suggest a phrasing like, "technical measure designed to restrict the freedoms above from being exercised by the person to whom the work is distributed."<br />
<br />
This phrasing doesn't block things like encrypted email, compression, formats, etc. and doesn't require using a relatively obscure legal term. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:52, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Physical works (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: 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 />
:A requisite would be to replace "modified versions" with "modified copies". If one is allowed to make a "modified version" of a physical, autographic work of art, then the original is destroyed in the process. Not something we would like to encourage. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:02, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure we can really consider physical works to be covered by the definition: concepts like distribution, copying and modifications do not seem to really apply. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:50, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::You can read the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License]. It has been worded very carefully by artists and lawyers so that it ''does'' apply to physical works. The key is that there is a distinction between the ''original'' and ''copies''. Only ''copies'' can be distributed and modified (of course, this applies seamlessly in the digital world where any transmission of data is implicitly a copy). By recursivity, a ''copy'' becomes itself an ''original'' for the person who receives it, and can make ''copies of the copy'' (modified or not).<br />
<br />
:::All licenses need not be worded as carefully, but the Definition itself would be sub-optimal if its wording left this aspect onto the table.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:07, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::In which case I would note that when they say a ''copy'' they seem to be talking about a converting an original to a digital work for which the freedoms can then apply. The freedoms mentioned in the above license do not seem to apply to ''originals'' at all, in which case I would argue that Art Libre are really talking about digital works in their license and avoiding the whole question of physical works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:47, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::You understood wrongly. ''Copies'' in the Free Art License can be analog copies (e.g. you can make an analog copy of a painting, which gives you a different painting). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:50, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not sure it does: the license also talks about the freedom to modify copies which implies that the copies themselves must have the property of modifiability which, in my mind at least, implies they should be digital (certainly, painting copies would not seem to fall in this category). I'm not sure you can talk about free software/content freedoms in respect to non-software works without really talking about digital works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Modified copies means the modification can take place in the course of making the copy itself. Like if you make a parodic copy of Mona Lisa: you don't need to first make a verbatim copy and then modify it. However, you ''can'' modify a non-digital work (a painting, a piece of sculpture...). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:21, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the license authors should probably clarify that, the license seems to talk about the freedom to "modify the copies", but says nothing about the freedom to modify the reproduction process. Maybe the two things are the same thing but it would seem open to intepretation.<br />
::::::::As for modifying painting and sculptures, you are right, of course, you ''can'' modify physical works although it's not a freedom I think a lot of people would use for sculptures and it's a freedom generally implicit in physical property law: once you buy a painting or sculpture you are free to do what you like with it. OTOH, digital works need this freedom thanks to advent of things like DRM and non-modifiable file formats such as object code and PDFs. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Mmmh, you should not mix up physical property law and "intellectual property" law. Even if you bought the physical medium of an artwork, it doesn't give you the right to modify the work, because the "intellectual property" still belongs to the author (unless the rights were also granted or transferred by contract).<br />
:::::::::This is especially true in countries where the moral right of the author is protected by the law, by the way. In France, if you buy a painting and then decide to destroy or modify it, the author can sue you (and he will win). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]]<br />
::::::::::Have no fear, Antoine, I'm not mixing the two up at all and explicitly differentiated between them in my remarks above. My point was that when you purchase physical property you are implicitly free to what you like with it (i.e. modify it). That the Art Libre license makes reference to modification of copies seems to imply they are talking about digital works. But I think you didn't address all the points I made above.<br />
== Things which are not works of the mind ==<br />
<br />
The word "content" is good for non-material commons, but what about "material commons" like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information, "commons" in general?. They need also a "free/freedom" definition. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 02:13, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). It is not only a legal category, but also a philosophical one: creation of works - art works, software works, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. The additions you are proposing do not belong to this category. Trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message only destroys the meaning of the message and transforms it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful.<br />
<br />
:Of course, this does not preclude someone else from giving a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. Only, the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents. <br />
<br />
:(btw., this kind of thing probably belongs in a FAQ ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 02:27, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: Ok, I get your pragmatic point of view. But only one comment. Think about seeds like code: used, improved, copied, studied in the past by every generation. Now we are changing from a free model to a private model ([http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml Monsanto's Nightmare] and similar). I prefer to use the term [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons#Wider_usage_of_the_term Commons] that includes Free Content (non-material commons) and material commons. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 04:22, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I understand your opinion, and I could agree if we were trying to write a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing). But we are trying to write a Definition, which must be precise and based on firm (conceptual) ground ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:23, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Source code ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Erik_M%C3%B6ller]] said: 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.<br />
<br />
:The common position among the Free Art License people (not that I always agree with them ;-)) is that providing the source code is a subcase of allowing to study the work. They argue that the source code is necessary to study software, while there is no such necessity for works of art.<br />
<br />
:One could counter-argue that even if source code is not necessary to study a piece of non-software content, it is nonetheless very practical for doing modifications (the GNU GPL defines source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it").<br />
<br />
:Of course another problem is that some kinds a work do not allow any clear notion of source code. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:11, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::From my own perspective, as a representative of the [http://www.freeroleplay.org/ Free RPG Community] there are many examples where a source code is a real requirement. A pen-and-paper roleplaying game can be both an artistic work as well as a functional work. Roleplaying games can be converted into software computer games so source code can be required for this. Many players frequently make house rules and ammendments so access to source code is requisite for this - both to the rules and to the . There are so many reasons to have a source code even from just our narrow field.<br />
<br />
::This is quite aside from the fact that access to the source code of a free content work might be necessary not only to study the work, but to study how the work was put together. Trivially, this could mean as little as being able to examine a word processor document to see what fonts are being used, etc. A more important example could be being able to examine a layered image file to see how a image effect was put together.<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure which works you are referring to that do not have a clear notion of a source code: the only such works I am aware of are non-digital works in which case the other freedoms may not apply anyway (see my remarks above). Please see my remarks here for more infomation: [[Talk:Definition]] --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 00:00, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I fullheartedly agree that the distinction between artistic and functional works is a fallacy (I have already said this to various people, including RMS). That is why, in my opinion, the same broad freedoms should apply to free contents as well as free software (the wording of the definition can differ of course, and that's why we are here ;-)).<br />
<br />
:::As for freedom for physical works, you can read my answer to your remark ;-)) <br />
:::But even for digital works, can simple "transparent" binary data be considered the source code for everything? Let's say I have the WAV recording of a concert. What do the bytes tell me about how the guitarist played the strings of his instrument, or even what precise notes he played, with what effects etc.?<br />
<br />
:::Software writing is a symbolic activity (writing code is writing text according to certain conventions). As such, its representation as text (i.e. ASCII or Unicode bytes) is a perfect mirror of the way it functions. It is not necessarily the case with other types of works.<br />
<br />
:::But I do agree that access to some kind of "source code" is important in many cases. Complicated isn't it? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::It is indeed complicated and I'm glad you also disagree with RMS false distinction between "artistic", "functional" and "political" works.<br />
<br />
::::IMHO I always found the GPL definition of source code (BTW, why isn't the GPL listed as one of the free content licenses?) to be the simplest and most flexible. For example, when start talking about things such as music recordings, photographs, etc, in other words works that originate with physical objects, it is often better to apply the freedoms to the digital copies only. In your example, it is prohibitive to provide the recording studio, instruments, etc that produced the original work, but it is simple enough to provide the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", in other words, the uncompressed WAV files or the music in some other modifiable format of the digital copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:01, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem with source code in works of art is that it's always hard to determine what is source code. Look at flash movies made by jibjab.com: they use photos and drawings to create animated flash movies with words and music which usually are themselves derivative works. So what is source code? Original song with it's score? Original photos? Code they wrote using this or that program for creating flash animations? All of above? I'm not sure such a requirement will have a positive impact on culture. It is important to have an access to work without DRM restrictions. But asking an author for all the pieces he used in the process of creaton is not necessery and practical. There we have a problem of tools: most advanced programs for creating digital works are proprietary. Asking for a source code of a work is of little practical value if we do not have access for tools itself. Following that logic we could ask authors to use only free software tools what itself is a good thing, but this seems simply going too far. My opinion is, that source code is not necessity, much more important is using open formats whenever possible (and please note, that even now it's not easy if you create multimedia works). [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:24, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I couldn't disagree more strongly: from my own experience the freedom to modify or study a work is strongly predicated on having access to the source. Without the access to the source, these freedoms are meaningless license verbiage. Again, drawing from my own experiences in the pen-and-paper RPG world, the recent "open gaming movement" used the [http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Open Gaming License] was a (partial) copyleft license with no source requirement used to license the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying system (more popularly called the d20 System). The original d20 system documents whre provided in a modifiable format. However, without the source requirement downstream publishers simply published derivative works in PDFs and hardcopies only, effectively creating a dead-end for the works, taking from the commons but not giving back to it.<br />
<br />
::::I also dispute that it isn't clear what the source code is: the GPL clearly defines this as "preferred form of the work for making modifications" which, in the cases you mention above, obviously resolves the issue for the sources of digital works. In the case of the flash animation, the source is clearly the original SWF file, the image file is its own source, and I don't see an amiguity over that (whether requirements to provide all the elements used to compose a work should also be needed is a seperate discussion).<br />
<br />
::::The argument regarding properietary programs also seems spurious: in the software world not all compilers are free software, cheap or easy to access but that doesn't have any bearing on whether you license software written for these compilers as free software. Whether requiring free software tools for free content is a completely seperate discussion. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:34, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ricardo, what you say is "in case of works of art source code means open format". Thus basically what we have to say is very similar, we define terminology differently. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 12:10, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::That's interesting, please expand on your definition of open format: do you think the issue can be resolved by simply requiring publication in open formats, such as ODT? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:30, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::AFAIK, the common definition of open format is a format which is openly documented and (preferably) unencumbered by patents. It is insufficient w.r.t. your criteria, because by this definition PDF and Postcript are open formats (anyone can read and implement the [http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html PDF specification]). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:15, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Please note, that sometimes also formats under "reasonable and non-discriminatory license" (RAND) are treated as open, which is a big lie. I'm not sure what status PDF and Postcript have, but it seems that they are simply free. Why it is hard to extract data from PDF? I'm trying to understand in what situation open format is not enough, maybe i'm missing something. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 18:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::As Antoine clarified, an open format requirement is fine, but more important is a modifiable, source code format. The problem with PDF and Postscript is that it is possible extract source-like information from the file, but, like software object code, I believe it's tricky and lossy. Can someone who is more familiar with PDF clarify/verify this? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 18:58, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::The "problem" (actually an understandable design decision) with PDF is that it does not have any notion of textual content (let alone semantic structure). It is a purely graphical rendering language. Say you have text "FOO BAR" in a PDF, the PDF code actually says "render letter F at centimeters (15.34,24.12), render letter O at centimeters (16.78,24.12)", etc. So even a "simple" task like extracting raw text from a PDF needs heuristics to distinguish words, paragraphs, etc. (I had the pleasure of trying to do this in pure PHP and actually get 90% good results for many documents ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:12, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::So there is no problem. It's lot like a comic strip: PDF is a text in a hostile (graphic) envirement. But if this is authors will, it's OK. We can't outlaw comic strips, right?[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:33, 3 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
::::::::Who said anything about outlawing comic strips or PDF? I'm talking about allowing people the freedom to distribute PDFs, provided that they also supply the original, structured source document which rendered the PDF. The issue here is that its a non trivial task to modify or reverse engineer PDFs. Distributing in only non-modifiable formats (such as PDF or Flash) renders the freedom to modify the work impossible to use, and therefore meaningless. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:53, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My fault, bad wording. I should talk about declaring non-free, not outlawing (tried to use a metaphore and considerably failed :-) I think you are wrong about this issue. In culture there is always some kind of source code one level deeper. If you have digitally animated movie you have compressed file good for internet sharing, than not-compressed file, analog copies for theater screenings, than you have all the code, background rendering and heroes of your story in polygons or whatever. Without all that it's hard to make some kinds of derivative works, but other kinds are perfectly possible even with low-quality internet clip. In a long run this doesn't really matter. It's the law what is important and lack of any kinds of DRM, not a format characteristic by itself. Printed book is extremely non-modifiable kind of format, but i will not declare all printed works not-free because of that. To copy a book - yes, it is tricky, you need special machines for that, scanners and OCR. But you can do it, legally and practicaly. The same applies to PDF (print it, scan it, OCR it, done), and in 5, 10 or 50 years it will be the same with video or multimedia content.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:49, 4 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
:::::::Again, who said anything about declaring hard copy books as non-free? Provided the source files are freely distributed for the book the book can be free! Also your point about copying a book is invalid: The situation is very similar to using a decompiler to reverse engineer object code: both processes are highly lossy and difficult which is why the FSF made source code a predicate for free software, and which is why we should do the same for free content.<br />
<br />
:::::::As I stated above, publishing in a non-modifiable format such as hard copy print or PDF only renders the freedom to modify and study a work meaningless. You either consider the freedom to modify to be as important as the other freedoms (read/display, copy, etc) and we should require a source copy where appropriate or you would prefer they not be exercised in certain situations, in which case this you should explain why you think it is subordinate to the other freedoms and "author's will". --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:52, 5 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I think you make a mistake when you think about freedom only in a digital envirement. When i say about "authors will" i think for example about art-books - individually crafted, unique hard copy books. As long as it is posible to someone who obtained such a book to make a scan and publish it and make derivatie works i will consider the book free. You not, because it's author have chosen deliberately a format (art form) not really suitable for any kind of digitalisation and manipulation. In this example to comply with a free license as you see it author of such a book has to create a completely different art object. That simply doesn't make sense. I do not agree that format characteristic rather than legal status of work and its medium makes a work non-free. This discussion gets lenghty, i suggest to wait and see what others have to say on this topic.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 00:07, 6 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
:::: Extracting anything from CVS is tricky, and any given video codec is lossy. We cant demand user friendliness, as well as we can't demand minimal resolution of a movie. My problem is different: what to do with flash, which obviously is not an open format. Are we to declare all flash works non-free by default? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 21:29, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Again, the discussion about requiring open/transparent formats is seperate to the discussion about requiring the source be distributed with free content. If you would like to discuss this second issue, please create a seperate heading for it. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:53, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I think this is strictly connected, see above[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:49, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::I don't think I read anything about open/transparent sources in your above post. You can require source code without also requiring that source be open/transparent as well, so the two issues can be clearly seperated. Of more importance is whether we require source code and I would prefer to focus on that for the time being. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:52, 5 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free expression? ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: Free expression 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 />
== Right to use and perform ==<br />
<br />
Apparently the current definition takes as implicit the first freedom of free software (the right to use/execute).<br />
I suggest to make it explicit, because it allows to include "related rights" such as the right to perform (e.g. a play, a song...):<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. This includes all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I agree that the freedom to perform is important, especially with regard to creative works such as music and film/video, and should be made more explicit. Here is my suggestion:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to perform the work, or otherwise display it for any purpose:''' The work may be performed, broadcast, webcast, or displayed in any manner in public or private.<br />
<br />
I feel like "any use" as referred to above by [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] is a bit too broad here, but perhaps it would make sense to add the derived uses portion?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Elizabeth stark|Elizabeth stark]] 20:33, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I would advocate keeping the "freedom to use" in the freedom title as well ("use" meaning execute a program, watch a movie, etc.). It may be granted in most of today's legal systems, but the Definition should be independent from legal systems, and most readers won't know much about the law. So I think it's a healthy reminder.<br />
: Unless you think "use" is too broad a term. What problems could this entail? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:41, 5 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Right to study and apply the "information" ==<br />
<br />
I find the phrasing "study and apply the information" a bit confusing. The word "information" seems to imply that only the symbolic (e.g. textual) content of the work can be studied, not its inner workings or the nuances of its making. Also, as pointed elsewhere, "information" is really sterile.<br />
<br />
I would rephrase it:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and use the knowledge gained from the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:29, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Applying Knowledge ==<br />
<br />
First freedom now is worded as "the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it". This may however be a problem when you think about it in context of scientific research. Copyright is covering just a publication, but there may be (and usually are) also included other "IP" law such as patents. I understand "applying knowledge" as a very wide term. I'm not aware of any exisiting license which may guarantee that patents will be not used. However this is a very good statement if we want to describe our ideals.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 02:06, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I think it is an absolute fact that free content cannot be impeded by patents. We need to work towards a clearer distinction, I think, between expectations we have from the works which are called free content, and from the licenses which are used for free content. I don't need to use a complex license that has clauses about patents if that is never relevant to me. Similarly, regarding earlier discussions about source code, I don't need anything in my license about source code if I'm talking about an essentially transparent work such as an essay. So I think we need to work towards emphasizing this distinction more clearly, and then formulate precisely what expectations there are from a ''work'' that is considered free content.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: And maybe "freedom to study" is good enough as a license requirement? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 03:38, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: This is one of the cases where the absence of a clause restricting freedoms may already meet the requirements, I think. Generally, you're free to study and apply knowledge from a work, unless the terms under which you have done that restrict you from doing so. What I think is important, especially if we want this definition to be a superset of the free software definition, is that we make it clear that the work itself must be available in a format suitable for modification. Whether or not the license protects that state of transparency is optional.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:54, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Non-commercial not free? ==<br />
<br />
It seems very arbitrary to call popular non-commercial licenses such as CreativeCommons Attrbution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike non-free! I believe all current usages of the term free content or free license allow a non-commercial clause. Very little content will be free under this definition as few content creators allow other people to profit from their hard work without paying royalties. I see no reason why a license prohibiting the receiver from profiting from content he got for nothing can not be called free.<br />
<br />
In fact, I think CC A-NC-SA is the model minimum free license, as it makes use of most of the restriction clauses permitted here plus NonCommercial. This definition should allow non-commercial licenses to fall under this umbrella. The interests of Wikimedia can still be satisfied by saying only Comercial Free Content and Fair Use were allowed. Prohibiting the reuser from making profit serves to protect the free status of the content, thus justifying its use as a restriction in the license. [[User:59.94.2.232|59.94.2.232]] 06:55, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: You can find my thoughts on the Creative Commons NC licenses [http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC here]. The idea that any kind of commercial venture is an "evil" from which people must be "protected" is a highly fallacious one; indeed, it is exactly the commercial use of free content and free software that has enabled some of the most exciting projects today, ranging from the adoption of free software in large sections of industry to the integration of Wikipedia content into search engines, CD-ROMs, and existing lookup tools. ''Especially'' in a collaborative context, it is essential to grant this freedom from the start, as it is virtually impossible to get permission from any contributor to a wiki for a particular commercial use.<br />
<br />
: It is perfectly alright for authors and artists not to reliniquish rights in accordance with this definition. But the resulting works should not be called "free". There can be no compromise on the core freedoms in this definition. If anything, they may need to be expanded.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I think that the provision on free redistribution makes it quite impossible to simply "profit from others' hard work". If someone tried to derive unfair advantage from a work, then people are free to reject the offer and are very likely to find the work that the offer is based on under more reasonable terms. In fact, if a share-alike or copyleft clause is used, then you'd be likely to find whatever was added to the original work freely available too. NC clauses do nothing to prevent unfair usage, but will prevent many legit uses.--[[User:Kari Pahula|Kari Pahula]] 11:33, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Not to allow commercial re-use is a critical limitation, as Erik aptly pointed out in his essays, e.g. OpenSource-Jahrbuch 2006. So this content simply is NOT free. That's why Stallman does not support CC anymore, because the different models get to easily thrown into a single bucket altogether. The importance about the commercial clause is that some value-additions are ONLY possible in a commercial context, when it is possible to integrate the new content e.g. in Websites with advertisements, or sell packaged DVDs etc. To protect the idea of free it is enough to add Copyleft provisions. [[User:89.53.204.123|89.53.204.123]] 17:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: There is no such thing as simply profiting from others hard work. You can propagate, advertise and store their work, but these are all of benefit to the work's author (although this '''may''' require or at least be helped by the moral right of paternity). NC is a fundamental error, and the definition of NC is causing headaches. NC is another layer of permission culture, and is not Free. The FSF and DFSG freedom definitions require that work be allowed to be sold, so it is not true that they allow NC clauses. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:39, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: So - not surprisingly, I guess - I think that it is important to give some kind of recognition to those licenses that grant freedoms that are more flexible than an "all rights reserved" or "personal-use only" license. While I agree that it is not possible to accommodate those licenses within the current definition of "free" being debated here, I do think that these can and should be classified under a different brand of licenses that enable important freedoms that are palatable to different industries than would contemplate a "free" license. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 18:09, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::The distinction between commercial and non-commercial also hinders the evolution of an open society where there is no commerial action anymore ;-) -- [[User:84.190.164.6|84.190.164.6]] 08:54, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Other Free Content Definitions ==<br />
<br />
A took the time to compile a list of other free content definitions, feel free to update: -- [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureDefinition Unoficial Free Culture UK Port of Stallman's Four Freedoms]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureGuidelines Unofficial Free Culture UK Port of the Debian Free Software Guidelines]<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content Wikipedia Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeroleplay.org/about Free RPG Community] (self-post)<br />
<br />
Edited & added fc-uk definitions --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Recommendations ==<br />
<br />
I see license compatibility as a freedom, too. The more standarised they are the more works can be combined and reused. This is crucial for a free culture movement: we have to avoid balkanisation. I suggest changing reccomendation section to reflect that threat. I believe giving recommendations for CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses (they are most popular) for all publicatons and art, and GFDL (Wikipedia standard) for reference content and textbooks. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:22, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure recommandations are our concern, apart from telling which licenses satisfy to the definition. I'd rather have a characterization of licenses and let people choose (see my proposal on the [[Talk:Licenses]] page). Also, popularity is not a sufficient metric IMHO ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:17, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Moral right==<br />
<br />
This is a somewhat off-topic subthread about moral right. I put it here for reference, but we should find a way of putting offtopic or obsolete discussions elsewhere so as to keep a clean discussion page ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:03, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Mmm... I'm not at all sure about your point about moral rights and modifying sculptures and paintings. I don't know a lot about moral rights law, but surely that would only apply if you publicly distributed the work or used the author's name in relation to the modified work? So are we talking about the freedom to modify or the freedom to distribute? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 15:11, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:No, not only. Moral right includes the right to the integrity of the work, so if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author. Moral right considers that the work is part of the personality of the author. (of course, in practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: Dear Antoine, you don't know moral rights: [http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, '''which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation''']. If you modify a work, you infringe '''economic rights'''. You infringe moral rights only if your modification prejudices '''honor''' or '''reputation''' of the author. --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 22:44, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Francesco, I do know moral rights ;) The Berne convention is a generic formulation of moral rights, but it does not dictate how states implement it in practice, and implementations are widely varying. In French right at least, it is traditionnally the author who decides what prejudices his honor or reputation. Thus, making any modification to a work, even privately, can be forbidden by moral right ''if the author decides so''. One must understand that the moral right is viewed as a fundamental right of the author (at the same level as freedom of expression, for example). So courts usually interpret it in a manner very favorable to the author.<br />
:::Anyway, this not really the main subject here. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 23:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Daer Antoine, the Berne Covention isn't a generic formulation of moral right! :)))) In all the nations the author decides what prejudices his honor or reputation! :))) Ignorance in this matter is inexcusable: I study law and I think that you must understand that you don't know moral rights. You are confounding the right of integrity (a moral right) with the exclusive right to modification (an economic right). --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 00:06, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::(rewritten answer) Ok, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that modification ''always'' infringes moral right; I said it potentially infringes it. That's exactly what your excerpt of the Berne Convention says, by the way. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:03, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::: By the way, moral right is really off-topic in the original thread, so I think I'm gonna detach the whole sub-thread and put it elsewhere. <br />
::::: ...oh, and ''please'' avoid appeal to authority ("I study law"), thanks.... --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:55, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Sorry Antoine, but I'm not a stupid. :)<br />
You said:<br />
<br />
1. "The Berne convention is a generic formulation of moral rights": '''false'''.<br />
<br />
2. "In French right at least, it is traditionnally the author who decides what prejudices his honor or reputation": '''in all the countries!'''<br />
<br />
3. "In practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work": '''false'''<br />
<br />
4. "if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author": '''false''' (where is "potentially"???)<br />
<br />
I study law: this is only a fact. You can eliminate this topic and your errors, but you can eliminate your ignorance in matter. ;))) It seems that you don't accept the truth. Why?--[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 11:02, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::You are trying to split hairs.<br />
::::::1. Berne Convention is a generic formulation of moral rights (as well as other rights, of course - my wording was elliptic, but since you know the Berne Convention it seemed obvious that you were able to understand it)<br />
::::::2. If it's true in all countries, it's true in France, isn't it? (but it's not true in countries which ''don't have a moral right'', you know)<br />
::::::3. This is a simple matter of logic, you cannot exercise your moral right if you don't know something has happened to your work. ''How could you sue for something you don't know has happened?''<br />
::::::4. "Potentially" was implied by previous messages in the thread, where I explained that the author ''could'' sue for modification on the basis of moral right. To understand a message, it's often useful to read previous messages in the thread...<br />
::::::And why do you think I'm gonna eliminate the topic? That's ridiculous.<br />
::::::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:20, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Antoine, you are an '''incredible sophist'''! :-D Clap clap clap! I think that you prefer to kill a children rather than admit your evident errors. :-D End of thread for me. You have the last word. ;-) --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 14:54, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I like that statement ("you prefer kill a children rather than admit your evident errors"), although I don't know if it applies to me - honestly I've never thought about killing a children, perhaps I should give it a try. Thanks for the good laugh :-))<br />
:On a more serious note, perhaps I should be wary of sophistry indeed. Hmmm. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:01, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Portals ==<br />
<br />
I have no problem with the idea of portals in some sort of unofficial capacity and on this wiki. I think we should encourage it. However, placing the link it in the definition, at least as it has been suggested/worded here, makes me a little uneasy. -- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 17:18, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Could you be more specific about how it makes you uneasy, or just edit the description?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:35, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== God et al.==<br />
<br />
A couple of comments:<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 />
** This sounds off (the God bit -- which notion of a God), and the scare quotes on "their." I'd say something like "Copyright grants an author a monopoly on certain actions ..."<br />
* can the license require attribution be removed from any derived works? -- reagle</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=1612Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-05-04T15:49:02Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Source code */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
== Rewording Edit ==<br />
<br />
I submitted a relatively large change. While the diff itself may be big, especially in the preamble, but I don't think I've made significant changes to the tone of the content. As a result, I think it is probably alright coming this late.<br />
<br />
Here's a summary of the larger changes or set of changes that I made:<br />
<br />
I removed a number of "therefores", and a number of comma-separated clauses acting as parenthetical asides that I thought it could survive without. I tried to break up a few long sentences. This was all purely stylistic.<br />
<br />
I dropped the "in addition to a requirement of author attribution" from the preamble because it's clear without it (IMHO) and because it seems to qualify a statement about essential freedoms which we speak out against below. I think it's best to state clearly that there are essential freedoms and then there are some extra restrictions that do not in fact have an impact on these essential freedom. Attribution is one of these but need not be specially cases. This way it doesn't sound like an exception but an explanation that it is ''by definition'' free.<br />
<br />
In two paragraphs of the first three paragraphs there are these two lists:<br />
<br />
:artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents<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.<br />
<br />
They seem to be redundant so I've tried to reduce it to just one list where the the first list was.<br />
<br />
I've removed "regardless of their profession, their beliefs, their country of origin, or any other criteria" and just say "anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." I think it's just as clear and more general.<br />
<br />
I switched the strange switch into the second person in the paragraph with the god like creator. It read nice but was a jarring switch.<br />
<br />
I added a line or two mentioning that some licenses are also used purely to take away people's freedoms. ASCAP is a licensing organization. The last draft talks about licenses as if they are only used to give away freedom but they were first used to sell freedom in restrained ways.<br />
<br />
I was confused by the line: "Indeed, depending on the nature of the work, it may even be unethical to deny any of the enumerated freedoms above." It seems like our argument in this document is that it's always unethical, on some level, to restrict essential freedom. I think that this sort of confuses the issue and, in any case, don't add much where it was.<br />
<br />
I removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:This definition only covers freedom in terms of copyright law; usage of a work may be restricted by other laws.<br />
<br />
I guess I have two issues here. First, it's not clear what these other laws and this sounds very legalistic for a statement of principles. More importantly, it seems like we would want to oppose other types of freedoms articulated in other types of law as well. The FSD is useful in opposing patents just as well as copyright (which the overly forumlate OSD could not). I don't think it's necessary.<br />
<br />
I've removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:"Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work."<br />
<br />
Because I basically moved it into the list of essential freedoms above. There was already an example there and I think that this is important enough it's worth dealing with a little higher up in the document. I think it's now more clear and doesn't need to be mentioned below.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 02:01, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'll have another edit later. The main problem I have is with the changes in the first few paragraphs about "information goods". First, I don't like this phrase because it essentially adopts the language of information as property, a commodity. I find it somewhat amusing that you would choose this language given your objections to the word "content". ;-) I find the argument against attempts to equate information with physical property very persuasive, and am inclined to remove this phrase entirely from the document.<br />
<br />
: The second problem is with the change to the examples enumerated in the beginning. The ones chosen - "Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, .." - were chosen explicitly because the argument that ''these'' works should be free is strongest and most persuasive. Reworded, it essentially sounds like a declaration against copyright on "anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits". This can definitely not stay this way.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:54, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Sounds good. "Information goods" was clumsy and we're better off with out it.<br />
<br />
::I'm still worried by the list of things. We're suggestion, but not defining, the scope of the document here. Something to think about and work out in drafting period. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:36, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Fair Use ==<br />
<br />
Angela made the point that we should position our definition vs. the existing rights of fair use. This echoes some of the sentiments of Larry's response. So we should think about that before we take it live.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:09, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Made some further edits as per the above. Avoided explicitly mentioning fair use for now to avoid confusion, might add that later.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:28, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not entirely clear defining our position in regards to fair use should mean here. I'm concerned because (a) fair use is only in the US a few other countries. Some other juristictions have similar "fair dealing" law but there are important differences. It's also a balancing act left up to judges and can sometimes be very unclear. I'm also concerned because (b) fair use is a set of compromises that is supposed to balance what would be overly restricted copyright. Our argument here is that copyright ''is'' always overly restricted and that we need to not settle for fair use rights but for something more meaningful. Or am I completely off-base here? --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:44, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No, I think you're right. From an ethical perspective, I think that it is important that fair use rights are ''also'' protected and broadened, but I'm not sure if this belongs into this definition. For now, I have added the phrase "Only very limited freedoms are granted to others" to clarify that copyright is not absolute; perhaps that is sufficient.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 05:47, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I think an argument can be made that it is important that any definition expressly acknowledge fair use (US) or fair dealing (rest of the world) and/or any other exception or limitation to copyright law. This is because of recent judicial decisions that tend to find, for example, that one can contractually override exceptions to copyright law (such as reverse engineering). Thus, I think it could be important to clarify that licenses that satisfy the free content/expression definition are "fair use/fair dealing plus" and grant a layer of permissions in addition to and on top existing exceptions to copyright law. Happy to leave this up to community discussion, however.--[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 10:12, 1 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Fair use is not unified at all among countries, so referring to it in the definition would introduce uncertainty and complication (unless the definition also gives its own definition of fair use). Moreover, fair use is completely covered by the rights specified in the definition AFAIU. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:43, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I would submit that the issue of whether a specific acknowledgement that free licenses apply in addition to and on top of existing exceptions and limitations that exist at law should not be decided based on whether the term "fair use" is used or not. One can use the terminology that I have just used "exceptions and limitations at law." This encompasses jurisdictional differences. And it should not be the case that "fair use" or any other exceptions or limitations are covered by the rights specified in the definition. In fact, I would have thought that the entire point of free licenses is to carve out a space that exists beyond what is currently provided for by law. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 2:23, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Hi Mia. As far as I've understood you correctly, I don't agree. Your proposal doesn't encompass jurisdictional differences, it just ''hides'' them which is vastly different. If I read "exceptions and limitations at law", I don't know what the text is talking about because those exceptions and limitations are different depending on the jurisdiction. Consequently, the text has no normative value because people from different parts of the world will understand different things.<br />
<br />
:Let me stress it, because it is very important: ''the Definition should be totally independent of any local specifics''. There must be ''no international insecurity'' as to what legal system the definition is referring to when it is using a given expression. The obvious way to achieve this is to avoid any reference to regionally varying legal concepts (or only as a side note as is the case for moral rights; then fair use or legal exceptions to copyright might also be mentioned as a side note, not a constitutive part of the definition).<br />
<br />
:Please take example from the Free Software Definition: it is worded in terms which are clear for everyone in the world (assuming they speak English ;-)), it does not refer to any non-essential legal concept. Actually even the notion of copyright is not essential in the Free Software Definition: it is mentioned only as a common way of implementing the FSD, not as a constitutive part of the definition.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:05, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Effective Technical Measures ==<br />
<br />
In regards to the little back-and-forth about "effective technical measures." I now realize that you are using the term as a little legal term-of-art to distinguish between TPMs and things like formats or compression. However, I'm afraid it still blocks things like GPG/PGP encrypted email. I'm going to suggest a phrasing like, "technical measure designed to restrict the freedoms above from being exercised by the person to whom the work is distributed."<br />
<br />
This phrasing doesn't block things like encrypted email, compression, formats, etc. and doesn't require using a relatively obscure legal term. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:52, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Physical works (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: 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 />
:A requisite would be to replace "modified versions" with "modified copies". If one is allowed to make a "modified version" of a physical, autographic work of art, then the original is destroyed in the process. Not something we would like to encourage. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:02, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure we can really consider physical works to be covered by the definition: concepts like distribution, copying and modifications do not seem to really apply. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:50, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::You can read the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License]. It has been worded very carefully by artists and lawyers so that it ''does'' apply to physical works. The key is that there is a distinction between the ''original'' and ''copies''. Only ''copies'' can be distributed and modified (of course, this applies seamlessly in the digital world where any transmission of data is implicitly a copy). By recursivity, a ''copy'' becomes itself an ''original'' for the person who receives it, and can make ''copies of the copy'' (modified or not).<br />
<br />
:::All licenses need not be worded as carefully, but the Definition itself would be sub-optimal if its wording left this aspect onto the table.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:07, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::In which case I would note that when they say a ''copy'' they seem to be talking about a converting an original to a digital work for which the freedoms can then apply. The freedoms mentioned in the above license do not seem to apply to ''originals'' at all, in which case I would argue that Art Libre are really talking about digital works in their license and avoiding the whole question of physical works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:47, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::You understood wrongly. ''Copies'' in the Free Art License can be analog copies (e.g. you can make an analog copy of a painting, which gives you a different painting). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:50, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not sure it does: the license also talks about the freedom to modify copies which implies that the copies themselves must have the property of modifiability which, in my mind at least, implies they should be digital (certainly, painting copies would not seem to fall in this category). I'm not sure you can talk about free software/content freedoms in respect to non-software works without really talking about digital works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Modified copies means the modification can take place in the course of making the copy itself. Like if you make a parodic copy of Mona Lisa: you don't need to first make a verbatim copy and then modify it. However, you ''can'' modify a non-digital work (a painting, a piece of sculpture...). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:21, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the license authors should probably clarify that, the license seems to talk about the freedom to "modify the copies", but says nothing about the freedom to modify the reproduction process. Maybe the two things are the same thing but it would seem open to intepretation.<br />
::::::::As for modifying painting and sculptures, you are right, of course, you ''can'' modify physical works although it's not a freedom I think a lot of people would use for sculptures and it's a freedom generally implicit in physical property law: once you buy a painting or sculpture you are free to do what you like with it. OTOH, digital works need this freedom thanks to advent of things like DRM and non-modifiable file formats such as object code and PDFs. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Mmmh, you should not mix up physical property law and "intellectual property" law. Even if you bought the physical medium of an artwork, it doesn't give you the right to modify the work, because the "intellectual property" still belongs to the author (unless the rights were also granted or transferred by contract).<br />
:::::::::This is especially true in countries where the moral right of the author is protected by the law, by the way. In France, if you buy a painting and then decide to destroy or modify it, the author can sue you (and he will win). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]]<br />
::::::::::Have no fear, Antoine, I'm not mixing the two up at all and explicitly differentiated between them in my remarks above. My point was that when you purchase physical property you are implicitly free to what you like with it (i.e. modify it). That the Art Libre license makes reference to modification of copies seems to imply they are talking about digital works. But I think you didn't address all the points I made above.<br />
== Things which are not works of the mind ==<br />
<br />
The word "content" is good for non-material commons, but what about "material commons" like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information, "commons" in general?. They need also a "free/freedom" definition. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 02:13, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). It is not only a legal category, but also a philosophical one: creation of works - art works, software works, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. The additions you are proposing do not belong to this category. Trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message only destroys the meaning of the message and transforms it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful.<br />
<br />
:Of course, this does not preclude someone else from giving a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. Only, the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents. <br />
<br />
:(btw., this kind of thing probably belongs in a FAQ ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 02:27, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: Ok, I get your pragmatic point of view. But only one comment. Think about seeds like code: used, improved, copied, studied in the past by every generation. Now we are changing from a free model to a private model ([http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml Monsanto's Nightmare] and similar). I prefer to use the term [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons#Wider_usage_of_the_term Commons] that includes Free Content (non-material commons) and material commons. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 04:22, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I understand your opinion, and I could agree if we were trying to write a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing). But we are trying to write a Definition, which must be precise and based on firm (conceptual) ground ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:23, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Source code ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Erik_M%C3%B6ller]] said: 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.<br />
<br />
:The common position among the Free Art License people (not that I always agree with them ;-)) is that providing the source code is a subcase of allowing to study the work. They argue that the source code is necessary to study software, while there is no such necessity for works of art.<br />
<br />
:One could counter-argue that even if source code is not necessary to study a piece of non-software content, it is nonetheless very practical for doing modifications (the GNU GPL defines source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it").<br />
<br />
:Of course another problem is that some kinds a work do not allow any clear notion of source code. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:11, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::From my own perspective, as a representative of the [http://www.freeroleplay.org/ Free RPG Community] there are many examples where a source code is a real requirement. A pen-and-paper roleplaying game can be both an artistic work as well as a functional work. Roleplaying games can be converted into software computer games so source code can be required for this. Many players frequently make house rules and ammendments so access to source code is requisite for this - both to the rules and to the . There are so many reasons to have a source code even from just our narrow field.<br />
<br />
::This is quite aside from the fact that access to the source code of a free content work might be necessary not only to study the work, but to study how the work was put together. Trivially, this could mean as little as being able to examine a word processor document to see what fonts are being used, etc. A more important example could be being able to examine a layered image file to see how a image effect was put together.<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure which works you are referring to that do not have a clear notion of a source code: the only such works I am aware of are non-digital works in which case the other freedoms may not apply anyway (see my remarks above). Please see my remarks here for more infomation: [[Talk:Definition]] --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 00:00, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I fullheartedly agree that the distinction between artistic and functional works is a fallacy (I have already said this to various people, including RMS). That is why, in my opinion, the same broad freedoms should apply to free contents as well as free software (the wording of the definition can differ of course, and that's why we are here ;-)).<br />
<br />
:::As for freedom for physical works, you can read my answer to your remark ;-)) <br />
:::But even for digital works, can simple "transparent" binary data be considered the source code for everything? Let's say I have the WAV recording of a concert. What do the bytes tell me about how the guitarist played the strings of his instrument, or even what precise notes he played, with what effects etc.?<br />
<br />
:::Software writing is a symbolic activity (writing code is writing text according to certain conventions). As such, its representation as text (i.e. ASCII or Unicode bytes) is a perfect mirror of the way it functions. It is not necessarily the case with other types of works.<br />
<br />
:::But I do agree that access to some kind of "source code" is important in many cases. Complicated isn't it? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::It is indeed complicated and I'm glad you also disagree with RMS false distinction between "artistic", "functional" and "political" works.<br />
<br />
::::IMHO I always found the GPL definition of source code (BTW, why isn't the GPL listed as one of the free content licenses?) to be the simplest and most flexible. For example, when start talking about things such as music recordings, photographs, etc, in other words works that originate with physical objects, it is often better to apply the freedoms to the digital copies only. In your example, it is prohibitive to provide the recording studio, instruments, etc that produced the original work, but it is simple enough to provide the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", in other words, the uncompressed WAV files or the music in some other modifiable format of the digital copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:01, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem with source code in works of art is that it's always hard to determine what is source code. Look at flash movies made by jibjab.com: they use photos and drawings to create animated flash movies with words and music which usually are themselves derivative works. So what is source code? Original song with it's score? Original photos? Code they wrote using this or that program for creating flash animations? All of above? I'm not sure such a requirement will have a positive impact on culture. It is important to have an access to work without DRM restrictions. But asking an author for all the pieces he used in the process of creaton is not necessery and practical. There we have a problem of tools: most advanced programs for creating digital works are proprietary. Asking for a source code of a work is of little practical value if we do not have access for tools itself. Following that logic we could ask authors to use only free software tools what itself is a good thing, but this seems simply going too far. My opinion is, that source code is not necessity, much more important is using open formats whenever possible (and please note, that even now it's not easy if you create multimedia works). [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:24, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I couldn't disagree more strongly: from my own experience the freedom to modify or study a work is strongly predicated on having access to the source. Without the access to the source, these freedoms are meaningless license verbiage. Again, drawing from my own experiences in the pen-and-paper RPG world, the recent "open gaming movement" used the [http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Open Gaming License] was a (partial) copyleft license with no source requirement used to license the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying system (more popularly called the d20 System). The original d20 system documents whre provided in a modifiable format. However, without the source requirement downstream publishers simply published derivative works in PDFs and hardcopies only, effectively creating a dead-end for the works, taking from the commons but not giving back to it.<br />
<br />
::::I also dispute that it isn't clear what the source code is: the GPL clearly defines this as "preferred form of the work for making modifications" which, in the cases you mention above, obviously resolves the issue for the sources of digital works. In the case of the flash animation, the source is clearly the original SWF file, the image file is its own source, and I don't see an amiguity over that (whether requirements to provide all the elements used to compose a work should also be needed is a seperate discussion).<br />
<br />
::::The argument regarding properietary programs also seems spurious: in the software world not all compilers are free software, cheap or easy to access but that doesn't have any bearing on whether you license software written for these compilers as free software. Whether requiring free software tools for free content is a completely seperate discussion. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:34, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ricardo, what you say is "in case of works of art source code means open format". Thus basically what we have to say is very similar, we define terminology differently. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 12:10, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::That's interesting, please expand on your definition of open format: do you think the issue can be resolved by simply requiring publication in open formats, such as ODT? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:30, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::AFAIK, the common definition of open format is a format which is openly documented and (preferably) unencumbered by patents. It is insufficient w.r.t. your criteria, because by this definition PDF and Postcript are open formats (anyone can read and implement the [http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html PDF specification]). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:15, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Please note, that sometimes also formats under "reasonable and non-discriminatory license" (RAND) are treated as open, which is a big lie. I'm not sure what status PDF and Postcript have, but it seems that they are simply free. Why it is hard to extract data from PDF? I'm trying to understand in what situation open format is not enough, maybe i'm missing something. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 18:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::As Antoine clarified, an open format requirement is fine, but more important is a modifiable, source code format. The problem with PDF and Postscript is that it is possible extract source-like information from the file, but, like software object code, I believe it's tricky and lossy. Can someone who is more familiar with PDF clarify/verify this? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 18:58, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::The "problem" (actually an understandable design decision) with PDF is that it does not have any notion of textual content (let alone semantic structure). It is a purely graphical rendering language. Say you have text "FOO BAR" in a PDF, the PDF code actually says "render letter F at centimeters (15.34,24.12), render letter O at centimeters (16.78,24.12)", etc. So even a "simple" task like extracting raw text from a PDF needs heuristics to distinguish words, paragraphs, etc. (I had the pleasure of trying to do this in pure PHP and actually get 90% good results for many documents ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:12, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::So there is no problem. It's lot like a comic strip: PDF is a text in a hostile (graphic) envirement. But if this is authors will, it's OK. We can't outlaw comic strips, right?[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:33, 3 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
::::::::Who said anything about outlawing comic strips or PDF? I'm talking about allowing people the freedom to distribute PDFs, provided that they also supply the original, structured source document which rendered the PDF. The issue here is that its a non trivial task to modify or reverse engineer PDFs. Distributing in only non-modifiable formats (such as PDF or Flash) renders the freedom to modify the work impossible to use, and therefore meaningless. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:53, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::: My fault, bad wording. I should talk about declaring non-free, not outlawing (tried to use a metaphore and considerably failed :-) I think you are wrong about this issue. In culture there is always some kind of source code one level deeper. If you have digitally animated movie you have compressed file good for internet sharing, than not-compressed file, analog copies for theater screenings, than you have all the code, background rendering and heroes of your story in polygons or whatever. Without all that it's hard to make some kinds of derivative works, but other kinds are perfectly possible even with low-quality internet clip. In a long run this doesn't really matter. It's the law what is important and lack of any kinds of DRM, not a format characteristic by itself. Printed book is extremely non-modifiable kind of format, but i will not declare all printed works not-free because of that. To copy a book - yes, it is tricky, you need special machines for that, scanners and OCR. But you can do it, legally and practicaly. The same applies to PDF (print it, scan it, OCR it, done), and in 5, 10 or 50 years it will be the same with video or multimedia content.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:49, 4 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
:::: Extracting anything from CVS is tricky, and any given video codec is lossy. We cant demand user friendliness, as well as we can't demand minimal resolution of a movie. My problem is different: what to do with flash, which obviously is not an open format. Are we to declare all flash works non-free by default? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 21:29, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Again, the discussion about requiring open/transparent formats is seperate to the discussion about requiring the source be distributed with free content. If you would like to discuss this second issue, please create a seperate heading for it. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:53, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I think this is strictly connected, see above[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:49, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free expression? ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: Free expression 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 />
== Right to use and perform ==<br />
<br />
Apparently the current definition takes as implicit the first freedom of free software (the right to use/execute).<br />
I suggest to make it explicit, because it allows to include "related rights" such as the right to perform (e.g. a play, a song...):<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. This includes all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Right to study and apply the "information" ==<br />
<br />
I find the phrasing "study and apply the information" a bit confusing. The word "information" seems to imply that only the symbolic (e.g. textual) content of the work can be studied, not its inner workings or the nuances of its making. Also, as pointed elsewhere, "information" is really sterile.<br />
<br />
I would rephrase it:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and use the knowledge gained from the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:29, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Applying Knowledge ==<br />
<br />
First freedom now is worded as "the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it". This may however be a problem when you think about it in context of scientific research. Copyright is covering just a publication, but there may be (and usually are) also included other "IP" law such as patents. I understand "applying knowledge" as a very wide term. I'm not aware of any exisiting license which may guarantee that patents will be not used. However this is a very good statement if we want to describe our ideals.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 02:06, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I think it is an absolute fact that free content cannot be impeded by patents. We need to work towards a clearer distinction, I think, between expectations we have from the works which are called free content, and from the licenses which are used for free content. I don't need to use a complex license that has clauses about patents if that is never relevant to me. Similarly, regarding earlier discussions about source code, I don't need anything in my license about source code if I'm talking about an essentially transparent work such as an essay. So I think we need to work towards emphasizing this distinction more clearly, and then formulate precisely what expectations there are from a ''work'' that is considered free content.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: And maybe "freedom to study" is good enough as a license requirement? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 03:38, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: This is one of the cases where the absence of a clause restricting freedoms may already meet the requirements, I think. Generally, you're free to study and apply knowledge from a work, unless the terms under which you have done that restrict you from doing so. What I think is important, especially if we want this definition to be a superset of the free software definition, is that we make it clear that the work itself must be available in a format suitable for modification. Whether or not the license protects that state of transparency is optional.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:54, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Non-commercial not free? ==<br />
<br />
It seems very arbitrary to call popular non-commercial licenses such as CreativeCommons Attrbution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike non-free! I believe all current usages of the term free content or free license allow a non-commercial clause. Very little content will be free under this definition as few content creators allow other people to profit from their hard work without paying royalties. I see no reason why a license prohibiting the receiver from profiting from content he got for nothing can not be called free.<br />
<br />
In fact, I think CC A-NC-SA is the model minimum free license, as it makes use of most of the restriction clauses permitted here plus NonCommercial. This definition should allow non-commercial licenses to fall under this umbrella. The interests of Wikimedia can still be satisfied by saying only Comercial Free Content and Fair Use were allowed. Prohibiting the reuser from making profit serves to protect the free status of the content, thus justifying its use as a restriction in the license. [[User:59.94.2.232|59.94.2.232]] 06:55, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: You can find my thoughts on the Creative Commons NC licenses [http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC here]. The idea that any kind of commercial venture is an "evil" from which people must be "protected" is a highly fallacious one; indeed, it is exactly the commercial use of free content and free software that has enabled some of the most exciting projects today, ranging from the adoption of free software in large sections of industry to the integration of Wikipedia content into search engines, CD-ROMs, and existing lookup tools. ''Especially'' in a collaborative context, it is essential to grant this freedom from the start, as it is virtually impossible to get permission from any contributor to a wiki for a particular commercial use.<br />
<br />
: It is perfectly alright for authors and artists not to reliniquish rights in accordance with this definition. But the resulting works should not be called "free". There can be no compromise on the core freedoms in this definition. If anything, they may need to be expanded.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I think that the provision on free redistribution makes it quite impossible to simply "profit from others' hard work". If someone tried to derive unfair advantage from a work, then people are free to reject the offer and are very likely to find the work that the offer is based on under more reasonable terms. In fact, if a share-alike or copyleft clause is used, then you'd be likely to find whatever was added to the original work freely available too. NC clauses do nothing to prevent unfair usage, but will prevent many legit uses.--[[User:Kari Pahula|Kari Pahula]] 11:33, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Not to allow commercial re-use is a critical limitation, as Erik aptly pointed out in his essays, e.g. OpenSource-Jahrbuch 2006. So this content simply is NOT free. That's why Stallman does not support CC anymore, because the different models get to easily thrown into a single bucket altogether. The importance about the commercial clause is that some value-additions are ONLY possible in a commercial context, when it is possible to integrate the new content e.g. in Websites with advertisements, or sell packaged DVDs etc. To protect the idea of free it is enough to add Copyleft provisions. [[User:89.53.204.123|89.53.204.123]] 17:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: There is no such thing as simply profiting from others hard work. You can propagate, advertise and store their work, but these are all of benefit to the work's author (although this '''may''' require or at least be helped by the moral right of paternity). NC is a fundamental error, and the definition of NC is causing headaches. NC is another layer of permission culture, and is not Free. The FSF and DFSG freedom definitions require that work be allowed to be sold, so it is not true that they allow NC clauses. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:39, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: So - not surprisingly, I guess - I think that it is important to give some kind of recognition to those licenses that grant freedoms that are more flexible than an "all rights reserved" or "personal-use only" license. While I agree that it is not possible to accommodate those licenses within the current definition of "free" being debated here, I do think that these can and should be classified under a different brand of licenses that enable important freedoms that are palatable to different industries than would contemplate a "free" license. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 18:09, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::The distinction between commercial and non-commercial also hinders the evolution of an open society where there is no commerial action anymore ;-) -- [[User:84.190.164.6|84.190.164.6]] 08:54, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Other Free Content Definitions ==<br />
<br />
A took the time to compile a list of other free content definitions, feel free to update: -- [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureDefinition Unoficial Free Culture UK Port of Stallman's Four Freedoms]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureGuidelines Unofficial Free Culture UK Port of the Debian Free Software Guidelines]<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content Wikipedia Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeroleplay.org/about Free RPG Community] (self-post)<br />
<br />
Edited & added fc-uk definitions --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Recommendations ==<br />
<br />
I see license compatibility as a freedom, too. The more standarised they are the more works can be combined and reused. This is crucial for a free culture movement: we have to avoid balkanisation. I suggest changing reccomendation section to reflect that threat. I believe giving recommendations for CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses (they are most popular) for all publicatons and art, and GFDL (Wikipedia standard) for reference content and textbooks. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:22, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure recommandations are our concern, apart from telling which licenses satisfy to the definition. I'd rather have a characterization of licenses and let people choose (see my proposal on the [[Talk:Licenses]] page). Also, popularity is not a sufficient metric IMHO ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:17, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Moral right==<br />
<br />
This is a somewhat off-topic subthread about moral right. I put it here for reference, but we should find a way of putting offtopic or obsolete discussions elsewhere so as to keep a clean discussion page ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:03, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Mmm... I'm not at all sure about your point about moral rights and modifying sculptures and paintings. I don't know a lot about moral rights law, but surely that would only apply if you publicly distributed the work or used the author's name in relation to the modified work? So are we talking about the freedom to modify or the freedom to distribute? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 15:11, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:No, not only. Moral right includes the right to the integrity of the work, so if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author. Moral right considers that the work is part of the personality of the author. (of course, in practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: Dear Antoine, you don't know moral rights: [http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, '''which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation''']. If you modify a work, you infringe '''economic rights'''. You infringe moral rights only if your modification prejudices '''honor''' or '''reputation''' of the author. --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 22:44, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Francesco, I do know moral rights ;) The Berne convention is a generic formulation of moral rights, but it does not dictate how states implement it in practice, and implementations are widely varying. In French right at least, it is traditionnally the author who decides what prejudices his honor or reputation. Thus, making any modification to a work, even privately, can be forbidden by moral right ''if the author decides so''. One must understand that the moral right is viewed as a fundamental right of the author (at the same level as freedom of expression, for example). So courts usually interpret it in a manner very favorable to the author.<br />
:::Anyway, this not really the main subject here. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 23:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Daer Antoine, the Berne Covention isn't a generic formulation of moral right! :)))) In all the nations the author decides what prejudices his honor or reputation! :))) Ignorance in this matter is inexcusable: I study law and I think that you must understand that you don't know moral rights. You are confounding the right of integrity (a moral right) with the exclusive right to modification (an economic right). --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 00:06, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::(rewritten answer) Ok, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that modification ''always'' infringes moral right; I said it potentially infringes it. That's exactly what your excerpt of the Berne Convention says, by the way. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:03, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
::::: By the way, moral right is really off-topic in the original thread, so I think I'm gonna detach the whole sub-thread and put it elsewhere. <br />
::::: ...oh, and ''please'' avoid appeal to authority ("I study law"), thanks.... --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:55, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Sorry Antoine, but I'm not a stupid. :)<br />
You said:<br />
<br />
1. "The Berne convention is a generic formulation of moral rights": '''false'''.<br />
<br />
2. "In French right at least, it is traditionnally the author who decides what prejudices his honor or reputation": '''in all the countries!'''<br />
<br />
3. "In practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work": '''false'''<br />
<br />
4. "if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author": '''false''' (where is "potentially"???)<br />
<br />
I study law: this is only a fact. You can eliminate this topic and your errors, but you can eliminate your ignorance in matter. ;))) It seems that you don't accept the truth. Why?--[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 11:02, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::You are trying to split hairs.<br />
::::::1. Berne Convention is a generic formulation of moral rights (as well as other rights, of course - my wording was elliptic, but since you know the Berne Convention it seemed obvious that you were able to understand it)<br />
::::::2. If it's true in all countries, it's true in France, isn't it? (but it's not true in countries which ''don't have a moral right'', you know)<br />
::::::3. This is a simple matter of logic, you cannot exercise your moral right if you don't know something has happened to your work. ''How could you sue for something you don't know has happened?''<br />
::::::4. "Potentially" was implied by previous messages in the thread, where I explained that the author ''could'' sue for modification on the basis of moral right. To understand a message, it's often useful to read previous messages in the thread...<br />
::::::And why do you think I'm gonna eliminate the topic? That's ridiculous.<br />
::::::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:20, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Antoine, you are an '''incredible sophist'''! :-D Clap clap clap! I think that you prefer to kill a children rather than admit your evident errors. :-D End of thread for me. You have the last word. ;-) --[[User:Francesco Baldini|Francesco Baldini]] 14:54, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I like that statement ("you prefer kill a children rather than admit your evident errors"), although I don't know if it applies to me - honestly I've never thought about killing a children, perhaps I should give it a try. Thanks for the good laugh :-))<br />
:On a more serious note, perhaps I should be wary of sophistry indeed. Hmmm. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:01, 4 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Portals ==<br />
<br />
I have no problem with the idea of portals in some sort of unofficial capacity and on this wiki. I think we should encourage it. However, placing the link it in the definition, at least as it has been suggested/worded here, makes me a little uneasy. -- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 17:18, 4 May 2006 (CEST)</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=1562Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-05-03T20:33:34Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Source code */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
== Rewording Edit ==<br />
<br />
I submitted a relatively large change. While the diff itself may be big, especially in the preamble, but I don't think I've made significant changes to the tone of the content. As a result, I think it is probably alright coming this late.<br />
<br />
Here's a summary of the larger changes or set of changes that I made:<br />
<br />
I removed a number of "therefores", and a number of comma-separated clauses acting as parenthetical asides that I thought it could survive without. I tried to break up a few long sentences. This was all purely stylistic.<br />
<br />
I dropped the "in addition to a requirement of author attribution" from the preamble because it's clear without it (IMHO) and because it seems to qualify a statement about essential freedoms which we speak out against below. I think it's best to state clearly that there are essential freedoms and then there are some extra restrictions that do not in fact have an impact on these essential freedom. Attribution is one of these but need not be specially cases. This way it doesn't sound like an exception but an explanation that it is ''by definition'' free.<br />
<br />
In two paragraphs of the first three paragraphs there are these two lists:<br />
<br />
:artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents<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.<br />
<br />
They seem to be redundant so I've tried to reduce it to just one list where the the first list was.<br />
<br />
I've removed "regardless of their profession, their beliefs, their country of origin, or any other criteria" and just say "anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." I think it's just as clear and more general.<br />
<br />
I switched the strange switch into the second person in the paragraph with the god like creator. It read nice but was a jarring switch.<br />
<br />
I added a line or two mentioning that some licenses are also used purely to take away people's freedoms. ASCAP is a licensing organization. The last draft talks about licenses as if they are only used to give away freedom but they were first used to sell freedom in restrained ways.<br />
<br />
I was confused by the line: "Indeed, depending on the nature of the work, it may even be unethical to deny any of the enumerated freedoms above." It seems like our argument in this document is that it's always unethical, on some level, to restrict essential freedom. I think that this sort of confuses the issue and, in any case, don't add much where it was.<br />
<br />
I removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:This definition only covers freedom in terms of copyright law; usage of a work may be restricted by other laws.<br />
<br />
I guess I have two issues here. First, it's not clear what these other laws and this sounds very legalistic for a statement of principles. More importantly, it seems like we would want to oppose other types of freedoms articulated in other types of law as well. The FSD is useful in opposing patents just as well as copyright (which the overly forumlate OSD could not). I don't think it's necessary.<br />
<br />
I've removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:"Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work."<br />
<br />
Because I basically moved it into the list of essential freedoms above. There was already an example there and I think that this is important enough it's worth dealing with a little higher up in the document. I think it's now more clear and doesn't need to be mentioned below.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 02:01, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'll have another edit later. The main problem I have is with the changes in the first few paragraphs about "information goods". First, I don't like this phrase because it essentially adopts the language of information as property, a commodity. I find it somewhat amusing that you would choose this language given your objections to the word "content". ;-) I find the argument against attempts to equate information with physical property very persuasive, and am inclined to remove this phrase entirely from the document.<br />
<br />
: The second problem is with the change to the examples enumerated in the beginning. The ones chosen - "Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, .." - were chosen explicitly because the argument that ''these'' works should be free is strongest and most persuasive. Reworded, it essentially sounds like a declaration against copyright on "anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits". This can definitely not stay this way.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:54, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Sounds good. "Information goods" was clumsy and we're better off with out it.<br />
<br />
::I'm still worried by the list of things. We're suggestion, but not defining, the scope of the document here. Something to think about and work out in drafting period. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:36, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Fair Use ==<br />
<br />
Angela made the point that we should position our definition vs. the existing rights of fair use. This echoes some of the sentiments of Larry's response. So we should think about that before we take it live.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:09, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Made some further edits as per the above. Avoided explicitly mentioning fair use for now to avoid confusion, might add that later.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:28, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not entirely clear defining our position in regards to fair use should mean here. I'm concerned because (a) fair use is only in the US a few other countries. Some other juristictions have similar "fair dealing" law but there are important differences. It's also a balancing act left up to judges and can sometimes be very unclear. I'm also concerned because (b) fair use is a set of compromises that is supposed to balance what would be overly restricted copyright. Our argument here is that copyright ''is'' always overly restricted and that we need to not settle for fair use rights but for something more meaningful. Or am I completely off-base here? --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:44, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No, I think you're right. From an ethical perspective, I think that it is important that fair use rights are ''also'' protected and broadened, but I'm not sure if this belongs into this definition. For now, I have added the phrase "Only very limited freedoms are granted to others" to clarify that copyright is not absolute; perhaps that is sufficient.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 05:47, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I think an argument can be made that it is important that any definition expressly acknowledge fair use (US) or fair dealing (rest of the world) and/or any other exception or limitation to copyright law. This is because of recent judicial decisions that tend to find, for example, that one can contractually override exceptions to copyright law (such as reverse engineering). Thus, I think it could be important to clarify that licenses that satisfy the free content/expression definition are "fair use/fair dealing plus" and grant a layer of permissions in addition to and on top existing exceptions to copyright law. Happy to leave this up to community discussion, however.--[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 10:12, 1 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Fair use is not unified at all among countries, so referring to it in the definition would introduce uncertainty and complication (unless the definition also gives its own definition of fair use). Moreover, fair use is completely covered by the rights specified in the definition AFAIU. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:43, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I would submit that the issue of whether a specific acknowledgement that free licenses apply in addition to and on top of existing exceptions and limitations that exist at law should not be decided based on whether the term "fair use" is used or not. One can use the terminology that I have just used "exceptions and limitations at law." This encompasses jurisdictional differences. And it should not be the case that "fair use" or any other exceptions or limitations are covered by the rights specified in the definition. In fact, I would have thought that the entire point of free licenses is to carve out a space that exists beyond what is currently provided for by law. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 2:23, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Hi Mia. As far as I've understood you correctly, I don't agree. Your proposal doesn't encompass jurisdictional differences, it just ''hides'' them which is vastly different. If I read "exceptions and limitations at law", I don't know what the text is talking about because those exceptions and limitations are different depending on the jurisdiction. Consequently, the text has no normative value because people from different parts of the world will understand different things.<br />
<br />
:Let me stress it, because it is very important: ''the Definition should be totally independent of any local specifics''. There must be ''no international insecurity'' as to what legal system the definition is referring to when it is using a given expression. The obvious way to achieve this is to avoid any reference to regionally varying legal concepts (or only as a side note as is the case for moral rights; then fair use or legal exceptions to copyright might also be mentioned as a side note, not a constitutive part of the definition).<br />
<br />
:Please take example from the Free Software Definition: it is worded in terms which are clear for everyone in the world (assuming they speak English ;-)), it does not refer to any non-essential legal concept. Actually even the notion of copyright is not essential in the Free Software Definition: it is mentioned only as a common way of implementing the FSD, not as a constitutive part of the definition.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:05, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Effective Technical Measures ==<br />
<br />
In regards to the little back-and-forth about "effective technical measures." I now realize that you are using the term as a little legal term-of-art to distinguish between TPMs and things like formats or compression. However, I'm afraid it still blocks things like GPG/PGP encrypted email. I'm going to suggest a phrasing like, "technical measure designed to restrict the freedoms above from being exercised by the person to whom the work is distributed."<br />
<br />
This phrasing doesn't block things like encrypted email, compression, formats, etc. and doesn't require using a relatively obscure legal term. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:52, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Physical works (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: 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 />
:A requisite would be to replace "modified versions" with "modified copies". If one is allowed to make a "modified version" of a physical, autographic work of art, then the original is destroyed in the process. Not something we would like to encourage. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:02, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure we can really consider physical works to be covered by the definition: concepts like distribution, copying and modifications do not seem to really apply. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:50, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::You can read the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License]. It has been worded very carefully by artists and lawyers so that it ''does'' apply to physical works. The key is that there is a distinction between the ''original'' and ''copies''. Only ''copies'' can be distributed and modified (of course, this applies seamlessly in the digital world where any transmission of data is implicitly a copy). By recursivity, a ''copy'' becomes itself an ''original'' for the person who receives it, and can make ''copies of the copy'' (modified or not).<br />
<br />
:::All licenses need not be worded as carefully, but the Definition itself would be sub-optimal if its wording left this aspect onto the table.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:07, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::In which case I would note that when they say a ''copy'' they seem to be talking about a converting an original to a digital work for which the freedoms can then apply. The freedoms mentioned in the above license do not seem to apply to ''originals'' at all, in which case I would argue that Art Libre are really talking about digital works in their license and avoiding the whole question of physical works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:47, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::You understood wrongly. ''Copies'' in the Free Art License can be analog copies (e.g. you can make an analog copy of a painting, which gives you a different painting). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:50, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not sure it does: the license also talks about the freedom to modify copies which implies that the copies themselves must have the property of modifiability which, in my mind at least, implies they should be digital (certainly, painting copies would not seem to fall in this category). I'm not sure you can talk about free software/content freedoms in respect to non-software works without really talking about digital works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Modified copies means the modification can take place in the course of making the copy itself. Like if you make a parodic copy of Mona Lisa: you don't need to first make a verbatim copy and then modify it. However, you ''can'' modify a non-digital work (a painting, a piece of sculpture...). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:21, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the license authors should probably clarify that, the license seems to talk about the freedom to "modify the copies", but says nothing about the freedom to modify the reproduction process. Maybe the two things are the same thing but it would seem open to intepretation.<br />
::::::::As for modifying painting and sculptures, you are right, of course, you ''can'' modify physical works although it's not a freedom I think a lot of people would use for sculptures and it's a freedom generally implicit in physical property law: once you buy a painting or sculpture you are free to do what you like with it. OTOH, digital works need this freedom thanks to advent of things like DRM and non-modifiable file formats such as object code and PDFs. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Mmmh, you should not mix up physical property law and "intellectual property" law. Even if you bought the physical medium of an artwork, it doesn't give you the right to modify the work, because the "intellectual property" still belongs to the author (unless the rights were also granted or transferred by contract).<br />
:::::::::This is especially true in countries where the moral right of the author is protected by the law, by the way. In France, if you buy a painting and then decide to destroy or modify it, the author can sue you (and he will win). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]]<br />
::::::::::Have no fear, Antoine, I'm not mixing the two up at all and explicitly differentiated between them in my remarks above. My point was that when you purchase physical property you are implicitly free to what you like with it (i.e. modify it). That the Art Libre license makes reference to modification of copies seems to imply they are talking about digital works. But I think you didn't address all the points I made above.<br />
::::::::::Mmm... I'm not at all sure about your point about moral rights and modifying sculptures and paintings. I don't know a lot about moral rights law, but surely that would only apply if you publicly distributed the work or used the author's name in relation to the modified work? So are we talking about the freedom to modify or the freedom to distribute? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 15:11, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::No, not only. Moral right includes the right to the integrity of the work, so if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author. Moral right considers that the work is part of the personality of the author. (of course, in practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Things which are not works of the mind ==<br />
<br />
The word "content" is good for non-material commons, but what about "material commons" like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information, "commons" in general?. They need also a "free/freedom" definition. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 02:13, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). It is not only a legal category, but also a philosophical one: creation of works - art works, software works, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. The additions you are proposing do not belong to this category. Trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message only destroys the meaning of the message and transforms it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful.<br />
<br />
:Of course, this does not preclude someone else from giving a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. Only, the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents. <br />
<br />
:(btw., this kind of thing probably belongs in a FAQ ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 02:27, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Source code ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Erik_M%C3%B6ller]] said: 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.<br />
<br />
:The common position among the Free Art License people (not that I always agree with them ;-)) is that providing the source code is a subcase of allowing to study the work. They argue that the source code is necessary to study software, while there is no such necessity for works of art.<br />
<br />
:One could counter-argue that even if source code is not necessary to study a piece of non-software content, it is nonetheless very practical for doing modifications (the GNU GPL defines source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it").<br />
<br />
:Of course another problem is that some kinds a work do not allow any clear notion of source code. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:11, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::From my own perspective, as a representative of the [http://www.freeroleplay.org/ Free RPG Community] there are many examples where a source code is a real requirement. A pen-and-paper roleplaying game can be both an artistic work as well as a functional work. Roleplaying games can be converted into software computer games so source code can be required for this. Many players frequently make house rules and ammendments so access to source code is requisite for this - both to the rules and to the . There are so many reasons to have a source code even from just our narrow field.<br />
<br />
::This is quite aside from the fact that access to the source code of a free content work might be necessary not only to study the work, but to study how the work was put together. Trivially, this could mean as little as being able to examine a word processor document to see what fonts are being used, etc. A more important example could be being able to examine a layered image file to see how a image effect was put together.<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure which works you are referring to that do not have a clear notion of a source code: the only such works I am aware of are non-digital works in which case the other freedoms may not apply anyway (see my remarks above). Please see my remarks here for more infomation: [[Talk:Definition]] --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 00:00, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I fullheartedly agree that the distinction between artistic and functional works is a fallacy (I have already said this to various people, including RMS). That is why, in my opinion, the same broad freedoms should apply to free contents as well as free software (the wording of the definition can differ of course, and that's why we are here ;-)).<br />
<br />
:::As for freedom for physical works, you can read my answer to your remark ;-)) <br />
:::But even for digital works, can simple "transparent" binary data be considered the source code for everything? Let's say I have the WAV recording of a concert. What do the bytes tell me about how the guitarist played the strings of his instrument, or even what precise notes he played, with what effects etc.?<br />
<br />
:::Software writing is a symbolic activity (writing code is writing text according to certain conventions). As such, its representation as text (i.e. ASCII or Unicode bytes) is a perfect mirror of the way it functions. It is not necessarily the case with other types of works.<br />
<br />
:::But I do agree that access to some kind of "source code" is important in many cases. Complicated isn't it? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::It is indeed complicated and I'm glad you also disagree with RMS false distinction between "artistic", "functional" and "political" works.<br />
<br />
::::IMHO I always found the GPL definition of source code (BTW, why isn't the GPL listed as one of the free content licenses?) to be the simplest and most flexible. For example, when start talking about things such as music recordings, photographs, etc, in other words works that originate with physical objects, it is often better to apply the freedoms to the digital copies only. In your example, it is prohibitive to provide the recording studio, instruments, etc that produced the original work, but it is simple enough to provide the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", in other words, the uncompressed WAV files or the music in some other modifiable format of the digital copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:01, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem with source code in works of art is that it's always hard to determine what is source code. Look at flash movies made by jibjab.com: they use photos and drawings to create animated flash movies with words and music which usually are themselves derivative works. So what is source code? Original song with it's score? Original photos? Code they wrote using this or that program for creating flash animations? All of above? I'm not sure such a requirement will have a positive impact on culture. It is important to have an access to work without DRM restrictions. But asking an author for all the pieces he used in the process of creaton is not necessery and practical. There we have a problem of tools: most advanced programs for creating digital works are proprietary. Asking for a source code of a work is of little practical value if we do not have access for tools itself. Following that logic we could ask authors to use only free software tools what itself is a good thing, but this seems simply going too far. My opinion is, that source code is not necessity, much more important is using open formats whenever possible (and please note, that even now it's not easy if you create multimedia works). [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:24, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I couldn't disagree more strongly: from my own experience the freedom to modify or study a work is strongly predicated on having access to the source. Without the access to the source, these freedoms are meaningless license verbiage. Again, drawing from my own experiences in the pen-and-paper RPG world, the recent "open gaming movement" used the [http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Open Gaming License] was a (partial) copyleft license with no source requirement used to license the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying system (more popularly called the d20 System). The original d20 system documents whre provided in a modifiable format. However, without the source requirement downstream publishers simply published derivative works in PDFs and hardcopies only, effectively creating a dead-end for the works, taking from the commons but not giving back to it.<br />
<br />
::::I also dispute that it isn't clear what the source code is: the GPL clearly defines this as "preferred form of the work for making modifications" which, in the cases you mention above, obviously resolves the issue for the sources of digital works. In the case of the flash animation, the source is clearly the original SWF file, the image file is its own source, and I don't see an amiguity over that (whether requirements to provide all the elements used to compose a work should also be needed is a seperate discussion).<br />
<br />
::::The argument regarding properietary programs also seems spurious: in the software world not all compilers are free software, cheap or easy to access but that doesn't have any bearing on whether you license software written for these compilers as free software. Whether requiring free software tools for free content is a completely seperate discussion. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:34, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ricardo, what you say is "in case of works of art source code means open format". Thus basically what we have to say is very similar, we define terminology differently. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 12:10, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::That's interesting, please expand on your definition of open format: do you think the issue can be resolved by simply requiring publication in open formats, such as ODT? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:30, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::AFAIK, the common definition of open format is a format which is openly documented and (preferably) unencumbered by patents. It is insufficient w.r.t. your criteria, because by this definition PDF and Postcript are open formats (anyone can read and implement the [http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html PDF specification]). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:15, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Please note, that sometimes also formats under "reasonable and non-discriminatory license" (RAND) are treated as open, which is a big lie. I'm not sure what status PDF and Postcript have, but it seems that they are simply free. Why it is hard to extract data from PDF? I'm trying to understand in what situation open format is not enough, maybe i'm missing something. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 18:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::As Antoine clarified, an open format requirement is fine, but more important is a modifiable, source code format. The problem with PDF and Postscript is that it is possible extract source-like information from the file, but, like software object code, I believe it's tricky and lossy. Can someone who is more familiar with PDF clarify/verify this? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 18:58, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::The "problem" (actually an understandable design decision) with PDF is that it does not have any notion of textual content (let alone semantic structure). It is a purely graphical rendering language. Say you have text "FOO BAR" in a PDF, the PDF code actually says "render letter F at centimeters (15.34,24.12), render letter O at centimeters (16.78,24.12)", etc. So even a "simple" task like extracting raw text from a PDF needs heuristics to distinguish words, paragraphs, etc. (I had the pleasure of trying to do this in pure PHP and actually get 90% good results for many documents ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:12, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::So there is no problem. It's lot like a comic strip: PDF is a text in a hostile (graphic) envirement. But if this is authors will, it's OK. We can't outlaw comic strips, right?[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:33, 3 May 2006 (CEST) <br />
<br />
:::: Extracting anything from CVS is tricky, and any given video codec is lossy. We cant demand user friendliness, as well as we can't demand minimal resolution of a movie. My problem is different: what to do with flash, which obviously is not an open format. Are we to declare all flash works non-free by default? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 21:29, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free expression? ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: Free expression 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 />
== Right to use and perform ==<br />
<br />
Apparently the current definition takes as implicit the first freedom of free software (the right to use/execute).<br />
I suggest to make it explicit, because it allows to include "related rights" such as the right to perform (e.g. a play, a song...):<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. This includes all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Right to study and apply the "information" ==<br />
<br />
I find the phrasing "study and apply the information" a bit confusing. The word "information" seems to imply that only the symbolic (e.g. textual) content of the work can be studied, not its inner workings or the nuances of its making. Also, as pointed elsewhere, "information" is really sterile.<br />
<br />
I would rephrase it:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and use the knowledge gained from the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:29, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Applying Knowledge ==<br />
<br />
First freedom now is worded as "the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it". This may however be a problem when you think about it in context of scientific research. Copyright is covering just a publication, but there may be (and usually are) also included other "IP" law such as patents. I understand "applying knowledge" as a very wide term. I'm not aware of any exisiting license which may guarantee that patents will be not used. However this is a very good statement if we want to describe our ideals.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 02:06, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I think it is an absolute fact that free content cannot be impeded by patents. We need to work towards a clearer distinction, I think, between expectations we have from the works which are called free content, and from the licenses which are used for free content. I don't need to use a complex license that has clauses about patents if that is never relevant to me. Similarly, regarding earlier discussions about source code, I don't need anything in my license about source code if I'm talking about an essentially transparent work such as an essay. So I think we need to work towards emphasizing this distinction more clearly, and then formulate precisely what expectations there are from a ''work'' that is considered free content.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: And maybe "freedom to study" is good enough as a license requirement? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 03:38, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: This is one of the cases where the absence of a clause restricting freedoms may already meet the requirements, I think. Generally, you're free to study and apply knowledge from a work, unless the terms under which you have done that restrict you from doing so. What I think is important, especially if we want this definition to be a superset of the free software definition, is that we make it clear that the work itself must be available in a format suitable for modification. Whether or not the license protects that state of transparency is optional.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:54, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Non-commercial not free? ==<br />
<br />
It seems very arbitrary to call popular non-commercial licenses such as CreativeCommons Attrbution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike non-free! I believe all current usages of the term free content or free license allow a non-commercial clause. Very little content will be free under this definition as few content creators allow other people to profit from their hard work without paying royalties. I see no reason why a license prohibiting the receiver from profiting from content he got for nothing can not be called free.<br />
<br />
In fact, I think CC A-NC-SA is the model minimum free license, as it makes use of most of the restriction clauses permitted here plus NonCommercial. This definition should allow non-commercial licenses to fall under this umbrella. The interests of Wikimedia can still be satisfied by saying only Comercial Free Content and Fair Use were allowed. Prohibiting the reuser from making profit serves to protect the free status of the content, thus justifying its use as a restriction in the license. [[User:59.94.2.232|59.94.2.232]] 06:55, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: You can find my thoughts on the Creative Commons NC licenses [http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC here]. The idea that any kind of commercial venture is an "evil" from which people must be "protected" is a highly fallacious one; indeed, it is exactly the commercial use of free content and free software that has enabled some of the most exciting projects today, ranging from the adoption of free software in large sections of industry to the integration of Wikipedia content into search engines, CD-ROMs, and existing lookup tools. ''Especially'' in a collaborative context, it is essential to grant this freedom from the start, as it is virtually impossible to get permission from any contributor to a wiki for a particular commercial use.<br />
<br />
: It is perfectly alright for authors and artists not to reliniquish rights in accordance with this definition. But the resulting works should not be called "free". There can be no compromise on the core freedoms in this definition. If anything, they may need to be expanded.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I think that the provision on free redistribution makes it quite impossible to simply "profit from others' hard work". If someone tried to derive unfair advantage from a work, then people are free to reject the offer and are very likely to find the work that the offer is based on under more reasonable terms. In fact, if a share-alike or copyleft clause is used, then you'd be likely to find whatever was added to the original work freely available too. NC clauses do nothing to prevent unfair usage, but will prevent many legit uses.--[[User:Kari Pahula|Kari Pahula]] 11:33, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Not to allow commercial re-use is a critical limitation, as Erik aptly pointed out in his essays, e.g. OpenSource-Jahrbuch 2006. So this content simply is NOT free. That's why Stallman does not support CC anymore, because the different models get to easily thrown into a single bucket altogether. The importance about the commercial clause is that some value-additions are ONLY possible in a commercial context, when it is possible to integrate the new content e.g. in Websites with advertisements, or sell packaged DVDs etc. To protect the idea of free it is enough to add Copyleft provisions. [[User:89.53.204.123|89.53.204.123]] 17:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: There is no such thing as simply profiting from others hard work. You can propagate, advertise and store their work, but these are all of benefit to the work's author (although this '''may''' require or at least be helped by the moral right of paternity). NC is a fundamental error, and the definition of NC is causing headaches. NC is another layer of permission culture, and is not Free. The FSF and DFSG freedom definitions require that work be allowed to be sold, so it is not true that they allow NC clauses. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:39, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: So - not surprisingly, I guess - I think that it is important to give some kind of recognition to those licenses that grant freedoms that are more flexible than an "all rights reserved" or "personal-use only" license. While I agree that it is not possible to accommodate those licenses within the current definition of "free" being debated here, I do think that these can and should be classified under a different brand of licenses that enable important freedoms that are palatable to different industries than would contemplate a "free" license. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 18:09, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Other Free Content Definitions ==<br />
<br />
A took the time to compile a list of other free content definitions, feel free to update: -- [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureDefinition Unoficial Free Culture UK Port of Stallman's Four Freedoms]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureGuidelines Unofficial Free Culture UK Port of the Debian Free Software Guidelines]<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content Wikipedia Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeroleplay.org/about Free RPG Community] (self-post)<br />
<br />
Edited & added fc-uk definitions --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Recommendations ==<br />
<br />
I see license compatibility as a freedom, too. The more standarised they are the more works can be combined and reused. This is crucial for a free culture movement: we have to avoid balkanisation. I suggest changing reccomendation section to reflect that threat. I believe giving recommendations for CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses (they are most popular) for all publicatons and art, and GFDL (Wikipedia standard) for reference content and textbooks. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:22, 3 May 2006 (CEST)</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=1561Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-05-03T20:22:05Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Recommendations */ again... signature...</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
== Rewording Edit ==<br />
<br />
I submitted a relatively large change. While the diff itself may be big, especially in the preamble, but I don't think I've made significant changes to the tone of the content. As a result, I think it is probably alright coming this late.<br />
<br />
Here's a summary of the larger changes or set of changes that I made:<br />
<br />
I removed a number of "therefores", and a number of comma-separated clauses acting as parenthetical asides that I thought it could survive without. I tried to break up a few long sentences. This was all purely stylistic.<br />
<br />
I dropped the "in addition to a requirement of author attribution" from the preamble because it's clear without it (IMHO) and because it seems to qualify a statement about essential freedoms which we speak out against below. I think it's best to state clearly that there are essential freedoms and then there are some extra restrictions that do not in fact have an impact on these essential freedom. Attribution is one of these but need not be specially cases. This way it doesn't sound like an exception but an explanation that it is ''by definition'' free.<br />
<br />
In two paragraphs of the first three paragraphs there are these two lists:<br />
<br />
:artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents<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.<br />
<br />
They seem to be redundant so I've tried to reduce it to just one list where the the first list was.<br />
<br />
I've removed "regardless of their profession, their beliefs, their country of origin, or any other criteria" and just say "anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." I think it's just as clear and more general.<br />
<br />
I switched the strange switch into the second person in the paragraph with the god like creator. It read nice but was a jarring switch.<br />
<br />
I added a line or two mentioning that some licenses are also used purely to take away people's freedoms. ASCAP is a licensing organization. The last draft talks about licenses as if they are only used to give away freedom but they were first used to sell freedom in restrained ways.<br />
<br />
I was confused by the line: "Indeed, depending on the nature of the work, it may even be unethical to deny any of the enumerated freedoms above." It seems like our argument in this document is that it's always unethical, on some level, to restrict essential freedom. I think that this sort of confuses the issue and, in any case, don't add much where it was.<br />
<br />
I removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:This definition only covers freedom in terms of copyright law; usage of a work may be restricted by other laws.<br />
<br />
I guess I have two issues here. First, it's not clear what these other laws and this sounds very legalistic for a statement of principles. More importantly, it seems like we would want to oppose other types of freedoms articulated in other types of law as well. The FSD is useful in opposing patents just as well as copyright (which the overly forumlate OSD could not). I don't think it's necessary.<br />
<br />
I've removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:"Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work."<br />
<br />
Because I basically moved it into the list of essential freedoms above. There was already an example there and I think that this is important enough it's worth dealing with a little higher up in the document. I think it's now more clear and doesn't need to be mentioned below.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 02:01, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'll have another edit later. The main problem I have is with the changes in the first few paragraphs about "information goods". First, I don't like this phrase because it essentially adopts the language of information as property, a commodity. I find it somewhat amusing that you would choose this language given your objections to the word "content". ;-) I find the argument against attempts to equate information with physical property very persuasive, and am inclined to remove this phrase entirely from the document.<br />
<br />
: The second problem is with the change to the examples enumerated in the beginning. The ones chosen - "Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, .." - were chosen explicitly because the argument that ''these'' works should be free is strongest and most persuasive. Reworded, it essentially sounds like a declaration against copyright on "anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits". This can definitely not stay this way.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:54, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Sounds good. "Information goods" was clumsy and we're better off with out it.<br />
<br />
::I'm still worried by the list of things. We're suggestion, but not defining, the scope of the document here. Something to think about and work out in drafting period. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:36, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Fair Use ==<br />
<br />
Angela made the point that we should position our definition vs. the existing rights of fair use. This echoes some of the sentiments of Larry's response. So we should think about that before we take it live.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:09, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Made some further edits as per the above. Avoided explicitly mentioning fair use for now to avoid confusion, might add that later.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:28, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not entirely clear defining our position in regards to fair use should mean here. I'm concerned because (a) fair use is only in the US a few other countries. Some other juristictions have similar "fair dealing" law but there are important differences. It's also a balancing act left up to judges and can sometimes be very unclear. I'm also concerned because (b) fair use is a set of compromises that is supposed to balance what would be overly restricted copyright. Our argument here is that copyright ''is'' always overly restricted and that we need to not settle for fair use rights but for something more meaningful. Or am I completely off-base here? --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:44, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No, I think you're right. From an ethical perspective, I think that it is important that fair use rights are ''also'' protected and broadened, but I'm not sure if this belongs into this definition. For now, I have added the phrase "Only very limited freedoms are granted to others" to clarify that copyright is not absolute; perhaps that is sufficient.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 05:47, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I think an argument can be made that it is important that any definition expressly acknowledge fair use (US) or fair dealing (rest of the world) and/or any other exception or limitation to copyright law. This is because of recent judicial decisions that tend to find, for example, that one can contractually override exceptions to copyright law (such as reverse engineering). Thus, I think it could be important to clarify that licenses that satisfy the free content/expression definition are "fair use/fair dealing plus" and grant a layer of permissions in addition to and on top existing exceptions to copyright law. Happy to leave this up to community discussion, however.--[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 10:12, 1 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Fair use is not unified at all among countries, so referring to it in the definition would introduce uncertainty and complication (unless the definition also gives its own definition of fair use). Moreover, fair use is completely covered by the rights specified in the definition AFAIU. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:43, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I would submit that the issue of whether a specific acknowledgement that free licenses apply in addition to and on top of existing exceptions and limitations that exist at law should not be decided based on whether the term "fair use" is used or not. One can use the terminology that I have just used "exceptions and limitations at law." This encompasses jurisdictional differences. And it should not be the case that "fair use" or any other exceptions or limitations are covered by the rights specified in the definition. In fact, I would have thought that the entire point of free licenses is to carve out a space that exists beyond what is currently provided for by law. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 2:23, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Hi Mia. As far as I've understood you correctly, I don't agree. Your proposal doesn't encompass jurisdictional differences, it just ''hides'' them which is vastly different. If I read "exceptions and limitations at law", I don't know what the text is talking about because those exceptions and limitations are different depending on the jurisdiction. Consequently, the text has no normative value because people from different parts of the world will understand different things.<br />
<br />
:Let me stress it, because it is very important: ''the Definition should be totally independent of any local specifics''. There must be ''no international insecurity'' as to what legal system the definition is referring to when it is using a given expression. The obvious way to achieve this is to avoid any reference to regionally varying legal concepts (or only as a side note as is the case for moral rights; then fair use or legal exceptions to copyright might also be mentioned as a side note, not a constitutive part of the definition).<br />
<br />
:Please take example from the Free Software Definition: it is worded in terms which are clear for everyone in the world (assuming they speak English ;-)), it does not refer to any non-essential legal concept. Actually even the notion of copyright is not essential in the Free Software Definition: it is mentioned only as a common way of implementing the FSD, not as a constitutive part of the definition.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:05, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Effective Technical Measures ==<br />
<br />
In regards to the little back-and-forth about "effective technical measures." I now realize that you are using the term as a little legal term-of-art to distinguish between TPMs and things like formats or compression. However, I'm afraid it still blocks things like GPG/PGP encrypted email. I'm going to suggest a phrasing like, "technical measure designed to restrict the freedoms above from being exercised by the person to whom the work is distributed."<br />
<br />
This phrasing doesn't block things like encrypted email, compression, formats, etc. and doesn't require using a relatively obscure legal term. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:52, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Physical works (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: 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 />
:A requisite would be to replace "modified versions" with "modified copies". If one is allowed to make a "modified version" of a physical, autographic work of art, then the original is destroyed in the process. Not something we would like to encourage. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:02, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure we can really consider physical works to be covered by the definition: concepts like distribution, copying and modifications do not seem to really apply. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:50, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::You can read the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License]. It has been worded very carefully by artists and lawyers so that it ''does'' apply to physical works. The key is that there is a distinction between the ''original'' and ''copies''. Only ''copies'' can be distributed and modified (of course, this applies seamlessly in the digital world where any transmission of data is implicitly a copy). By recursivity, a ''copy'' becomes itself an ''original'' for the person who receives it, and can make ''copies of the copy'' (modified or not).<br />
<br />
:::All licenses need not be worded as carefully, but the Definition itself would be sub-optimal if its wording left this aspect onto the table.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:07, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::In which case I would note that when they say a ''copy'' they seem to be talking about a converting an original to a digital work for which the freedoms can then apply. The freedoms mentioned in the above license do not seem to apply to ''originals'' at all, in which case I would argue that Art Libre are really talking about digital works in their license and avoiding the whole question of physical works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:47, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::You understood wrongly. ''Copies'' in the Free Art License can be analog copies (e.g. you can make an analog copy of a painting, which gives you a different painting). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:50, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not sure it does: the license also talks about the freedom to modify copies which implies that the copies themselves must have the property of modifiability which, in my mind at least, implies they should be digital (certainly, painting copies would not seem to fall in this category). I'm not sure you can talk about free software/content freedoms in respect to non-software works without really talking about digital works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Modified copies means the modification can take place in the course of making the copy itself. Like if you make a parodic copy of Mona Lisa: you don't need to first make a verbatim copy and then modify it. However, you ''can'' modify a non-digital work (a painting, a piece of sculpture...). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:21, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the license authors should probably clarify that, the license seems to talk about the freedom to "modify the copies", but says nothing about the freedom to modify the reproduction process. Maybe the two things are the same thing but it would seem open to intepretation.<br />
::::::::As for modifying painting and sculptures, you are right, of course, you ''can'' modify physical works although it's not a freedom I think a lot of people would use for sculptures and it's a freedom generally implicit in physical property law: once you buy a painting or sculpture you are free to do what you like with it. OTOH, digital works need this freedom thanks to advent of things like DRM and non-modifiable file formats such as object code and PDFs. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Mmmh, you should not mix up physical property law and "intellectual property" law. Even if you bought the physical medium of an artwork, it doesn't give you the right to modify the work, because the "intellectual property" still belongs to the author (unless the rights were also granted or transferred by contract).<br />
:::::::::This is especially true in countries where the moral right of the author is protected by the law, by the way. In France, if you buy a painting and then decide to destroy or modify it, the author can sue you (and he will win). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]]<br />
::::::::::Have no fear, Antoine, I'm not mixing the two up at all and explicitly differentiated between them in my remarks above. My point was that when you purchase physical property you are implicitly free to what you like with it (i.e. modify it). That the Art Libre license makes reference to modification of copies seems to imply they are talking about digital works. But I think you didn't address all the points I made above.<br />
::::::::::Mmm... I'm not at all sure about your point about moral rights and modifying sculptures and paintings. I don't know a lot about moral rights law, but surely that would only apply if you publicly distributed the work or used the author's name in relation to the modified work? So are we talking about the freedom to modify or the freedom to distribute? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 15:11, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::No, not only. Moral right includes the right to the integrity of the work, so if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author. Moral right considers that the work is part of the personality of the author. (of course, in practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Things which are not works of the mind ==<br />
<br />
The word "content" is good for non-material commons, but what about "material commons" like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information, "commons" in general?. They need also a "free/freedom" definition. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 02:13, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). It is not only a legal category, but also a philosophical one: creation of works - art works, software works, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. The additions you are proposing do not belong to this category. Trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message only destroys the meaning of the message and transforms it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful.<br />
<br />
:Of course, this does not preclude someone else from giving a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. Only, the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents. <br />
<br />
:(btw., this kind of thing probably belongs in a FAQ ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 02:27, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Source code ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Erik_M%C3%B6ller]] said: 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.<br />
<br />
:The common position among the Free Art License people (not that I always agree with them ;-)) is that providing the source code is a subcase of allowing to study the work. They argue that the source code is necessary to study software, while there is no such necessity for works of art.<br />
<br />
:One could counter-argue that even if source code is not necessary to study a piece of non-software content, it is nonetheless very practical for doing modifications (the GNU GPL defines source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it").<br />
<br />
:Of course another problem is that some kinds a work do not allow any clear notion of source code. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:11, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::From my own perspective, as a representative of the [http://www.freeroleplay.org/ Free RPG Community] there are many examples where a source code is a real requirement. A pen-and-paper roleplaying game can be both an artistic work as well as a functional work. Roleplaying games can be converted into software computer games so source code can be required for this. Many players frequently make house rules and ammendments so access to source code is requisite for this - both to the rules and to the . There are so many reasons to have a source code even from just our narrow field.<br />
<br />
::This is quite aside from the fact that access to the source code of a free content work might be necessary not only to study the work, but to study how the work was put together. Trivially, this could mean as little as being able to examine a word processor document to see what fonts are being used, etc. A more important example could be being able to examine a layered image file to see how a image effect was put together.<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure which works you are referring to that do not have a clear notion of a source code: the only such works I am aware of are non-digital works in which case the other freedoms may not apply anyway (see my remarks above). Please see my remarks here for more infomation: [[Talk:Definition]] --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 00:00, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I fullheartedly agree that the distinction between artistic and functional works is a fallacy (I have already said this to various people, including RMS). That is why, in my opinion, the same broad freedoms should apply to free contents as well as free software (the wording of the definition can differ of course, and that's why we are here ;-)).<br />
<br />
:::As for freedom for physical works, you can read my answer to your remark ;-)) <br />
:::But even for digital works, can simple "transparent" binary data be considered the source code for everything? Let's say I have the WAV recording of a concert. What do the bytes tell me about how the guitarist played the strings of his instrument, or even what precise notes he played, with what effects etc.?<br />
<br />
:::Software writing is a symbolic activity (writing code is writing text according to certain conventions). As such, its representation as text (i.e. ASCII or Unicode bytes) is a perfect mirror of the way it functions. It is not necessarily the case with other types of works.<br />
<br />
:::But I do agree that access to some kind of "source code" is important in many cases. Complicated isn't it? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::It is indeed complicated and I'm glad you also disagree with RMS false distinction between "artistic", "functional" and "political" works.<br />
<br />
::::IMHO I always found the GPL definition of source code (BTW, why isn't the GPL listed as one of the free content licenses?) to be the simplest and most flexible. For example, when start talking about things such as music recordings, photographs, etc, in other words works that originate with physical objects, it is often better to apply the freedoms to the digital copies only. In your example, it is prohibitive to provide the recording studio, instruments, etc that produced the original work, but it is simple enough to provide the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", in other words, the uncompressed WAV files or the music in some other modifiable format of the digital copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:01, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem with source code in works of art is that it's always hard to determine what is source code. Look at flash movies made by jibjab.com: they use photos and drawings to create animated flash movies with words and music which usually are themselves derivative works. So what is source code? Original song with it's score? Original photos? Code they wrote using this or that program for creating flash animations? All of above? I'm not sure such a requirement will have a positive impact on culture. It is important to have an access to work without DRM restrictions. But asking an author for all the pieces he used in the process of creaton is not necessery and practical. There we have a problem of tools: most advanced programs for creating digital works are proprietary. Asking for a source code of a work is of little practical value if we do not have access for tools itself. Following that logic we could ask authors to use only free software tools what itself is a good thing, but this seems simply going too far. My opinion is, that source code is not necessity, much more important is using open formats whenever possible (and please note, that even now it's not easy if you create multimedia works). [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:24, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I couldn't disagree more strongly: from my own experience the freedom to modify or study a work is strongly predicated on having access to the source. Without the access to the source, these freedoms are meaningless license verbiage. Again, drawing from my own experiences in the pen-and-paper RPG world, the recent "open gaming movement" used the [http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Open Gaming License] was a (partial) copyleft license with no source requirement used to license the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying system (more popularly called the d20 System). The original d20 system documents whre provided in a modifiable format. However, without the source requirement downstream publishers simply published derivative works in PDFs and hardcopies only, effectively creating a dead-end for the works, taking from the commons but not giving back to it.<br />
<br />
::::I also dispute that it isn't clear what the source code is: the GPL clearly defines this as "preferred form of the work for making modifications" which, in the cases you mention above, obviously resolves the issue for the sources of digital works. In the case of the flash animation, the source is clearly the original SWF file, the image file is its own source, and I don't see an amiguity over that (whether requirements to provide all the elements used to compose a work should also be needed is a seperate discussion).<br />
<br />
::::The argument regarding properietary programs also seems spurious: in the software world not all compilers are free software, cheap or easy to access but that doesn't have any bearing on whether you license software written for these compilers as free software. Whether requiring free software tools for free content is a completely seperate discussion. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:34, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ricardo, what you say is "in case of works of art source code means open format". Thus basically what we have to say is very similar, we define terminology differently. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 12:10, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::That's interesting, please expand on your definition of open format: do you think the issue can be resolved by simply requiring publication in open formats, such as ODT? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:30, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::AFAIK, the common definition of open format is a format which is openly documented and (preferably) unencumbered by patents. It is insufficient w.r.t. your criteria, because by this definition PDF and Postcript are open formats (anyone can read and implement the [http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html PDF specification]). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:15, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Please note, that sometimes also formats under "reasonable and non-discriminatory license" (RAND) are treated as open, which is a big lie. I'm not sure what status PDF and Postcript have, but it seems that they are simply free. Why it is hard to extract data from PDF? I'm trying to understand in what situation open format is not enough, maybe i'm missing something. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 18:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::As Antoine clarified, an open format requirement is fine, but more important is a modifiable, source code format. The problem with PDF and Postscript is that it is possible extract source-like information from the file, but, like software object code, I believe it's tricky and lossy. Can someone who is more familiar with PDF clarify/verify this? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 18:58, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::The "problem" (actually an understandable design decision) with PDF is that it does not have any notion of textual content (let alone semantic structure). It is a purely graphical rendering language. Say you have text "FOO BAR" in a PDF, the PDF code actually says "render letter F at centimeters (15.34,24.12), render letter O at centimeters (16.78,24.12)", etc. So even a "simple" task like extracting raw text from a PDF needs heuristics to distinguish words, paragraphs, etc. (I had the pleasure of trying to do this in pure PHP and actually get 90% good results for many documents ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:12, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::: Extracting anything from CVS is tricky, and any given video codec is lossy. We cant demand user friendliness, as well as we can't demand minimal resolution of a movie. My problem is different: what to do with flash, which obviously is not an open format. Are we to declare all flash works non-free by default? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 21:29, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free expression? ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: Free expression 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 />
== Right to use and perform ==<br />
<br />
Apparently the current definition takes as implicit the first freedom of free software (the right to use/execute).<br />
I suggest to make it explicit, because it allows to include "related rights" such as the right to perform (e.g. a play, a song...):<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. This includes all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Right to study and apply the "information" ==<br />
<br />
I find the phrasing "study and apply the information" a bit confusing. The word "information" seems to imply that only the symbolic (e.g. textual) content of the work can be studied, not its inner workings or the nuances of its making. Also, as pointed elsewhere, "information" is really sterile.<br />
<br />
I would rephrase it:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and use the knowledge gained from the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:29, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Applying Knowledge ==<br />
<br />
First freedom now is worded as "the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it". This may however be a problem when you think about it in context of scientific research. Copyright is covering just a publication, but there may be (and usually are) also included other "IP" law such as patents. I understand "applying knowledge" as a very wide term. I'm not aware of any exisiting license which may guarantee that patents will be not used. However this is a very good statement if we want to describe our ideals.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 02:06, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I think it is an absolute fact that free content cannot be impeded by patents. We need to work towards a clearer distinction, I think, between expectations we have from the works which are called free content, and from the licenses which are used for free content. I don't need to use a complex license that has clauses about patents if that is never relevant to me. Similarly, regarding earlier discussions about source code, I don't need anything in my license about source code if I'm talking about an essentially transparent work such as an essay. So I think we need to work towards emphasizing this distinction more clearly, and then formulate precisely what expectations there are from a ''work'' that is considered free content.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: And maybe "freedom to study" is good enough as a license requirement? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 03:38, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: This is one of the cases where the absence of a clause restricting freedoms may already meet the requirements, I think. Generally, you're free to study and apply knowledge from a work, unless the terms under which you have done that restrict you from doing so. What I think is important, especially if we want this definition to be a superset of the free software definition, is that we make it clear that the work itself must be available in a format suitable for modification. Whether or not the license protects that state of transparency is optional.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:54, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Non-commercial not free? ==<br />
<br />
It seems very arbitrary to call popular non-commercial licenses such as CreativeCommons Attrbution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike non-free! I believe all current usages of the term free content or free license allow a non-commercial clause. Very little content will be free under this definition as few content creators allow other people to profit from their hard work without paying royalties. I see no reason why a license prohibiting the receiver from profiting from content he got for nothing can not be called free.<br />
<br />
In fact, I think CC A-NC-SA is the model minimum free license, as it makes use of most of the restriction clauses permitted here plus NonCommercial. This definition should allow non-commercial licenses to fall under this umbrella. The interests of Wikimedia can still be satisfied by saying only Comercial Free Content and Fair Use were allowed. Prohibiting the reuser from making profit serves to protect the free status of the content, thus justifying its use as a restriction in the license. [[User:59.94.2.232|59.94.2.232]] 06:55, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: You can find my thoughts on the Creative Commons NC licenses [http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC here]. The idea that any kind of commercial venture is an "evil" from which people must be "protected" is a highly fallacious one; indeed, it is exactly the commercial use of free content and free software that has enabled some of the most exciting projects today, ranging from the adoption of free software in large sections of industry to the integration of Wikipedia content into search engines, CD-ROMs, and existing lookup tools. ''Especially'' in a collaborative context, it is essential to grant this freedom from the start, as it is virtually impossible to get permission from any contributor to a wiki for a particular commercial use.<br />
<br />
: It is perfectly alright for authors and artists not to reliniquish rights in accordance with this definition. But the resulting works should not be called "free". There can be no compromise on the core freedoms in this definition. If anything, they may need to be expanded.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I think that the provision on free redistribution makes it quite impossible to simply "profit from others' hard work". If someone tried to derive unfair advantage from a work, then people are free to reject the offer and are very likely to find the work that the offer is based on under more reasonable terms. In fact, if a share-alike or copyleft clause is used, then you'd be likely to find whatever was added to the original work freely available too. NC clauses do nothing to prevent unfair usage, but will prevent many legit uses.--[[User:Kari Pahula|Kari Pahula]] 11:33, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Not to allow commercial re-use is a critical limitation, as Erik aptly pointed out in his essays, e.g. OpenSource-Jahrbuch 2006. So this content simply is NOT free. That's why Stallman does not support CC anymore, because the different models get to easily thrown into a single bucket altogether. The importance about the commercial clause is that some value-additions are ONLY possible in a commercial context, when it is possible to integrate the new content e.g. in Websites with advertisements, or sell packaged DVDs etc. To protect the idea of free it is enough to add Copyleft provisions. [[User:89.53.204.123|89.53.204.123]] 17:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: There is no such thing as simply profiting from others hard work. You can propagate, advertise and store their work, but these are all of benefit to the work's author (although this '''may''' require or at least be helped by the moral right of paternity). NC is a fundamental error, and the definition of NC is causing headaches. NC is another layer of permission culture, and is not Free. The FSF and DFSG freedom definitions require that work be allowed to be sold, so it is not true that they allow NC clauses. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:39, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: So - not surprisingly, I guess - I think that it is important to give some kind of recognition to those licenses that grant freedoms that are more flexible than an "all rights reserved" or "personal-use only" license. While I agree that it is not possible to accommodate those licenses within the current definition of "free" being debated here, I do think that these can and should be classified under a different brand of licenses that enable important freedoms that are palatable to different industries than would contemplate a "free" license. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 18:09, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Other Free Content Definitions ==<br />
<br />
A took the time to compile a list of other free content definitions, feel free to update: -- [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureDefinition Unoficial Free Culture UK Port of Stallman's Four Freedoms]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureGuidelines Unofficial Free Culture UK Port of the Debian Free Software Guidelines]<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content Wikipedia Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeroleplay.org/about Free RPG Community] (self-post)<br />
<br />
Edited & added fc-uk definitions --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Recommendations ==<br />
<br />
I see license compatibility as a freedom, too. The more standarised they are the more works can be combined and reused. This is crucial for a free culture movement: we have to avoid balkanisation. I suggest changing reccomendation section to reflect that threat. I believe giving recommendations for CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses (they are most popular) for all publicatons and art, and GFDL (Wikipedia standard) for reference content and textbooks. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 22:22, 3 May 2006 (CEST)</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=1557Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-05-03T19:29:56Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Source code */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
== Rewording Edit ==<br />
<br />
I submitted a relatively large change. While the diff itself may be big, especially in the preamble, but I don't think I've made significant changes to the tone of the content. As a result, I think it is probably alright coming this late.<br />
<br />
Here's a summary of the larger changes or set of changes that I made:<br />
<br />
I removed a number of "therefores", and a number of comma-separated clauses acting as parenthetical asides that I thought it could survive without. I tried to break up a few long sentences. This was all purely stylistic.<br />
<br />
I dropped the "in addition to a requirement of author attribution" from the preamble because it's clear without it (IMHO) and because it seems to qualify a statement about essential freedoms which we speak out against below. I think it's best to state clearly that there are essential freedoms and then there are some extra restrictions that do not in fact have an impact on these essential freedom. Attribution is one of these but need not be specially cases. This way it doesn't sound like an exception but an explanation that it is ''by definition'' free.<br />
<br />
In two paragraphs of the first three paragraphs there are these two lists:<br />
<br />
:artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents<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.<br />
<br />
They seem to be redundant so I've tried to reduce it to just one list where the the first list was.<br />
<br />
I've removed "regardless of their profession, their beliefs, their country of origin, or any other criteria" and just say "anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." I think it's just as clear and more general.<br />
<br />
I switched the strange switch into the second person in the paragraph with the god like creator. It read nice but was a jarring switch.<br />
<br />
I added a line or two mentioning that some licenses are also used purely to take away people's freedoms. ASCAP is a licensing organization. The last draft talks about licenses as if they are only used to give away freedom but they were first used to sell freedom in restrained ways.<br />
<br />
I was confused by the line: "Indeed, depending on the nature of the work, it may even be unethical to deny any of the enumerated freedoms above." It seems like our argument in this document is that it's always unethical, on some level, to restrict essential freedom. I think that this sort of confuses the issue and, in any case, don't add much where it was.<br />
<br />
I removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:This definition only covers freedom in terms of copyright law; usage of a work may be restricted by other laws.<br />
<br />
I guess I have two issues here. First, it's not clear what these other laws and this sounds very legalistic for a statement of principles. More importantly, it seems like we would want to oppose other types of freedoms articulated in other types of law as well. The FSD is useful in opposing patents just as well as copyright (which the overly forumlate OSD could not). I don't think it's necessary.<br />
<br />
I've removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:"Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work."<br />
<br />
Because I basically moved it into the list of essential freedoms above. There was already an example there and I think that this is important enough it's worth dealing with a little higher up in the document. I think it's now more clear and doesn't need to be mentioned below.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 02:01, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'll have another edit later. The main problem I have is with the changes in the first few paragraphs about "information goods". First, I don't like this phrase because it essentially adopts the language of information as property, a commodity. I find it somewhat amusing that you would choose this language given your objections to the word "content". ;-) I find the argument against attempts to equate information with physical property very persuasive, and am inclined to remove this phrase entirely from the document.<br />
<br />
: The second problem is with the change to the examples enumerated in the beginning. The ones chosen - "Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, .." - were chosen explicitly because the argument that ''these'' works should be free is strongest and most persuasive. Reworded, it essentially sounds like a declaration against copyright on "anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits". This can definitely not stay this way.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:54, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Sounds good. "Information goods" was clumsy and we're better off with out it.<br />
<br />
::I'm still worried by the list of things. We're suggestion, but not defining, the scope of the document here. Something to think about and work out in drafting period. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:36, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Fair Use ==<br />
<br />
Angela made the point that we should position our definition vs. the existing rights of fair use. This echoes some of the sentiments of Larry's response. So we should think about that before we take it live.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:09, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Made some further edits as per the above. Avoided explicitly mentioning fair use for now to avoid confusion, might add that later.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:28, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not entirely clear defining our position in regards to fair use should mean here. I'm concerned because (a) fair use is only in the US a few other countries. Some other juristictions have similar "fair dealing" law but there are important differences. It's also a balancing act left up to judges and can sometimes be very unclear. I'm also concerned because (b) fair use is a set of compromises that is supposed to balance what would be overly restricted copyright. Our argument here is that copyright ''is'' always overly restricted and that we need to not settle for fair use rights but for something more meaningful. Or am I completely off-base here? --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:44, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No, I think you're right. From an ethical perspective, I think that it is important that fair use rights are ''also'' protected and broadened, but I'm not sure if this belongs into this definition. For now, I have added the phrase "Only very limited freedoms are granted to others" to clarify that copyright is not absolute; perhaps that is sufficient.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 05:47, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I think an argument can be made that it is important that any definition expressly acknowledge fair use (US) or fair dealing (rest of the world) and/or any other exception or limitation to copyright law. This is because of recent judicial decisions that tend to find, for example, that one can contractually override exceptions to copyright law (such as reverse engineering). Thus, I think it could be important to clarify that licenses that satisfy the free content/expression definition are "fair use/fair dealing plus" and grant a layer of permissions in addition to and on top existing exceptions to copyright law. Happy to leave this up to community discussion, however.--[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 10:12, 1 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Fair use is not unified at all among countries, so referring to it in the definition would introduce uncertainty and complication (unless the definition also gives its own definition of fair use). Moreover, fair use is completely covered by the rights specified in the definition AFAIU. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:43, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I would submit that the issue of whether a specific acknowledgement that free licenses apply in addition to and on top of existing exceptions and limitations that exist at law should not be decided based on whether the term "fair use" is used or not. One can use the terminology that I have just used "exceptions and limitations at law." This encompasses jurisdictional differences. And it should not be the case that "fair use" or any other exceptions or limitations are covered by the rights specified in the definition. In fact, I would have thought that the entire point of free licenses is to carve out a space that exists beyond what is currently provided for by law. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 2:23, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Hi Mia. As far as I've understood you correctly, I don't agree. Your proposal doesn't encompass jurisdictional differences, it just ''hides'' them which is vastly different. If I read "exceptions and limitations at law", I don't know what the text is talking about because those exceptions and limitations are different depending on the jurisdiction. Consequently, the text has no normative value because people from different parts of the world will understand different things.<br />
<br />
:Let me stress it, because it is very important: ''the Definition should be totally independent of any local specifics''. There must be ''no international insecurity'' as to what legal system the definition is referring to when it is using a given expression. The obvious way to achieve this is to avoid any reference to regionally varying legal concepts (or only as a side note as is the case for moral rights; then fair use or legal exceptions to copyright might also be mentioned as a side note, not a constitutive part of the definition).<br />
<br />
:Please take example from the Free Software Definition: it is worded in terms which are clear for everyone in the world (assuming they speak English ;-)), it does not refer to any non-essential legal concept. Actually even the notion of copyright is not essential in the Free Software Definition: it is mentioned only as a common way of implementing the FSD, not as a constitutive part of the definition.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:05, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Effective Technical Measures ==<br />
<br />
In regards to the little back-and-forth about "effective technical measures." I now realize that you are using the term as a little legal term-of-art to distinguish between TPMs and things like formats or compression. However, I'm afraid it still blocks things like GPG/PGP encrypted email. I'm going to suggest a phrasing like, "technical measure designed to restrict the freedoms above from being exercised by the person to whom the work is distributed."<br />
<br />
This phrasing doesn't block things like encrypted email, compression, formats, etc. and doesn't require using a relatively obscure legal term. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:52, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Physical works (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: 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 />
:A requisite would be to replace "modified versions" with "modified copies". If one is allowed to make a "modified version" of a physical, autographic work of art, then the original is destroyed in the process. Not something we would like to encourage. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:02, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure we can really consider physical works to be covered by the definition: concepts like distribution, copying and modifications do not seem to really apply. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:50, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::You can read the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License]. It has been worded very carefully by artists and lawyers so that it ''does'' apply to physical works. The key is that there is a distinction between the ''original'' and ''copies''. Only ''copies'' can be distributed and modified (of course, this applies seamlessly in the digital world where any transmission of data is implicitly a copy). By recursivity, a ''copy'' becomes itself an ''original'' for the person who receives it, and can make ''copies of the copy'' (modified or not).<br />
<br />
:::All licenses need not be worded as carefully, but the Definition itself would be sub-optimal if its wording left this aspect onto the table.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:07, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::In which case I would note that when they say a ''copy'' they seem to be talking about a converting an original to a digital work for which the freedoms can then apply. The freedoms mentioned in the above license do not seem to apply to ''originals'' at all, in which case I would argue that Art Libre are really talking about digital works in their license and avoiding the whole question of physical works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:47, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::You understood wrongly. ''Copies'' in the Free Art License can be analog copies (e.g. you can make an analog copy of a painting, which gives you a different painting). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:50, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not sure it does: the license also talks about the freedom to modify copies which implies that the copies themselves must have the property of modifiability which, in my mind at least, implies they should be digital (certainly, painting copies would not seem to fall in this category). I'm not sure you can talk about free software/content freedoms in respect to non-software works without really talking about digital works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Modified copies means the modification can take place in the course of making the copy itself. Like if you make a parodic copy of Mona Lisa: you don't need to first make a verbatim copy and then modify it. However, you ''can'' modify a non-digital work (a painting, a piece of sculpture...). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:21, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the license authors should probably clarify that, the license seems to talk about the freedom to "modify the copies", but says nothing about the freedom to modify the reproduction process. Maybe the two things are the same thing but it would seem open to intepretation.<br />
::::::::As for modifying painting and sculptures, you are right, of course, you ''can'' modify physical works although it's not a freedom I think a lot of people would use for sculptures and it's a freedom generally implicit in physical property law: once you buy a painting or sculpture you are free to do what you like with it. OTOH, digital works need this freedom thanks to advent of things like DRM and non-modifiable file formats such as object code and PDFs. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Mmmh, you should not mix up physical property law and "intellectual property" law. Even if you bought the physical medium of an artwork, it doesn't give you the right to modify the work, because the "intellectual property" still belongs to the author (unless the rights were also granted or transferred by contract).<br />
:::::::::This is especially true in countries where the moral right of the author is protected by the law, by the way. In France, if you buy a painting and then decide to destroy or modify it, the author can sue you (and he will win). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]]<br />
::::::::::Have no fear, Antoine, I'm not mixing the two up at all and explicitly differentiated between them in my remarks above. My point was that when you purchase physical property you are implicitly free to what you like with it (i.e. modify it). That the Art Libre license makes reference to modification of copies seems to imply they are talking about digital works. But I think you didn't address all the points I made above.<br />
::::::::::Mmm... I'm not at all sure about your point about moral rights and modifying sculptures and paintings. I don't know a lot about moral rights law, but surely that would only apply if you publicly distributed the work or used the author's name in relation to the modified work? So are we talking about the freedom to modify or the freedom to distribute? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 15:11, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::No, not only. Moral right includes the right to the integrity of the work, so if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author. Moral right considers that the work is part of the personality of the author. (of course, in practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Things which are not works of the mind ==<br />
<br />
The word "content" is good for non-material commons, but what about "material commons" like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information, "commons" in general?. They need also a "free/freedom" definition. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 02:13, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). It is not only a legal category, but also a philosophical one: creation of works - art works, software works, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. The additions you are proposing do not belong to this category. Trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message only destroys the meaning of the message and transforms it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful.<br />
<br />
:Of course, this does not preclude someone else from giving a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. Only, the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents. <br />
<br />
:(btw., this kind of thing probably belongs in a FAQ ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 02:27, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Source code ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Erik_M%C3%B6ller]] said: 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.<br />
<br />
:The common position among the Free Art License people (not that I always agree with them ;-)) is that providing the source code is a subcase of allowing to study the work. They argue that the source code is necessary to study software, while there is no such necessity for works of art.<br />
<br />
:One could counter-argue that even if source code is not necessary to study a piece of non-software content, it is nonetheless very practical for doing modifications (the GNU GPL defines source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it").<br />
<br />
:Of course another problem is that some kinds a work do not allow any clear notion of source code. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:11, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::From my own perspective, as a representative of the [http://www.freeroleplay.org/ Free RPG Community] there are many examples where a source code is a real requirement. A pen-and-paper roleplaying game can be both an artistic work as well as a functional work. Roleplaying games can be converted into software computer games so source code can be required for this. Many players frequently make house rules and ammendments so access to source code is requisite for this - both to the rules and to the . There are so many reasons to have a source code even from just our narrow field.<br />
<br />
::This is quite aside from the fact that access to the source code of a free content work might be necessary not only to study the work, but to study how the work was put together. Trivially, this could mean as little as being able to examine a word processor document to see what fonts are being used, etc. A more important example could be being able to examine a layered image file to see how a image effect was put together.<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure which works you are referring to that do not have a clear notion of a source code: the only such works I am aware of are non-digital works in which case the other freedoms may not apply anyway (see my remarks above). Please see my remarks here for more infomation: [[Talk:Definition]] --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 00:00, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I fullheartedly agree that the distinction between artistic and functional works is a fallacy (I have already said this to various people, including RMS). That is why, in my opinion, the same broad freedoms should apply to free contents as well as free software (the wording of the definition can differ of course, and that's why we are here ;-)).<br />
<br />
:::As for freedom for physical works, you can read my answer to your remark ;-)) <br />
:::But even for digital works, can simple "transparent" binary data be considered the source code for everything? Let's say I have the WAV recording of a concert. What do the bytes tell me about how the guitarist played the strings of his instrument, or even what precise notes he played, with what effects etc.?<br />
<br />
:::Software writing is a symbolic activity (writing code is writing text according to certain conventions). As such, its representation as text (i.e. ASCII or Unicode bytes) is a perfect mirror of the way it functions. It is not necessarily the case with other types of works.<br />
<br />
:::But I do agree that access to some kind of "source code" is important in many cases. Complicated isn't it? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::It is indeed complicated and I'm glad you also disagree with RMS false distinction between "artistic", "functional" and "political" works.<br />
<br />
::::IMHO I always found the GPL definition of source code (BTW, why isn't the GPL listed as one of the free content licenses?) to be the simplest and most flexible. For example, when start talking about things such as music recordings, photographs, etc, in other words works that originate with physical objects, it is often better to apply the freedoms to the digital copies only. In your example, it is prohibitive to provide the recording studio, instruments, etc that produced the original work, but it is simple enough to provide the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", in other words, the uncompressed WAV files or the music in some other modifiable format of the digital copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:01, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem with source code in works of art is that it's always hard to determine what is source code. Look at flash movies made by jibjab.com: they use photos and drawings to create animated flash movies with words and music which usually are themselves derivative works. So what is source code? Original song with it's score? Original photos? Code they wrote using this or that program for creating flash animations? All of above? I'm not sure such a requirement will have a positive impact on culture. It is important to have an access to work without DRM restrictions. But asking an author for all the pieces he used in the process of creaton is not necessery and practical. There we have a problem of tools: most advanced programs for creating digital works are proprietary. Asking for a source code of a work is of little practical value if we do not have access for tools itself. Following that logic we could ask authors to use only free software tools what itself is a good thing, but this seems simply going too far. My opinion is, that source code is not necessity, much more important is using open formats whenever possible (and please note, that even now it's not easy if you create multimedia works). [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:24, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I couldn't disagree more strongly: from my own experience the freedom to modify or study a work is strongly predicated on having access to the source. Without the access to the source, these freedoms are meaningless license verbiage. Again, drawing from my own experiences in the pen-and-paper RPG world, the recent "open gaming movement" used the [http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Open Gaming License] was a (partial) copyleft license with no source requirement used to license the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying system (more popularly called the d20 System). The original d20 system documents whre provided in a modifiable format. However, without the source requirement downstream publishers simply published derivative works in PDFs and hardcopies only, effectively creating a dead-end for the works, taking from the commons but not giving back to it.<br />
<br />
::::I also dispute that it isn't clear what the source code is: the GPL clearly defines this as "preferred form of the work for making modifications" which, in the cases you mention above, obviously resolves the issue for the sources of digital works. In the case of the flash animation, the source is clearly the original SWF file, the image file is its own source, and I don't see an amiguity over that (whether requirements to provide all the elements used to compose a work should also be needed is a seperate discussion).<br />
<br />
::::The argument regarding properietary programs also seems spurious: in the software world not all compilers are free software, cheap or easy to access but that doesn't have any bearing on whether you license software written for these compilers as free software. Whether requiring free software tools for free content is a completely seperate discussion. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:34, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ricardo, what you say is "in case of works of art source code means open format". Thus basically what we have to say is very similar, we define terminology differently. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 12:10, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::That's interesting, please expand on your definition of open format: do you think the issue can be resolved by simply requiring publication in open formats, such as ODT? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:30, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::AFAIK, the common definition of open format is a format which is openly documented and (preferably) unencumbered by patents. It is insufficient w.r.t. your criteria, because by this definition PDF and Postcript are open formats (anyone can read and implement the [http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html PDF specification]). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:15, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Please note, that sometimes also formats under "reasonable and non-discriminatory license" (RAND) are treated as open, which is a big lie. I'm not sure what status PDF and Postcript have, but it seems that they are simply free. Why it is hard to extract data from PDF? I'm trying to understand in what situation open format is not enough, maybe i'm missing something. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 18:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::As Antoine clarified, an open format requirement is fine, but more important is a modifiable, source code format. The problem with PDF and Postscript is that it is possible extract source-like information from the file, but, like software object code, I believe it's tricky and lossy. Can someone who is more familiar with PDF clarify/verify this? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 18:58, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::: Extracting anything from CVS is tricky, and any given video codec is lossy. We cant demand user friendliness, as well as we can't demand minimal resolution of a movie. My problem is different: what to do with flash, which obviously is not an open format. Are we to declare all flash works non-free by default? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 21:29, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free expression? ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: Free expression 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 />
== Right to use and perform ==<br />
<br />
Apparently the current definition takes as implicit the first freedom of free software (the right to use/execute).<br />
I suggest to make it explicit, because it allows to include "related rights" such as the right to perform (e.g. a play, a song...):<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. This includes all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Right to study and apply the "information" ==<br />
<br />
I find the phrasing "study and apply the information" a bit confusing. The word "information" seems to imply that only the symbolic (e.g. textual) content of the work can be studied, not its inner workings or the nuances of its making. Also, as pointed elsewhere, "information" is really sterile.<br />
<br />
I would rephrase it:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and use the knowledge gained from the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:29, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Applying Knowledge ==<br />
<br />
First freedom now is worded as "the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it". This may however be a problem when you think about it in context of scientific research. Copyright is covering just a publication, but there may be (and usually are) also included other "IP" law such as patents. I understand "applying knowledge" as a very wide term. I'm not aware of any exisiting license which may guarantee that patents will be not used. However this is a very good statement if we want to describe our ideals.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 02:06, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I think it is an absolute fact that free content cannot be impeded by patents. We need to work towards a clearer distinction, I think, between expectations we have from the works which are called free content, and from the licenses which are used for free content. I don't need to use a complex license that has clauses about patents if that is never relevant to me. Similarly, regarding earlier discussions about source code, I don't need anything in my license about source code if I'm talking about an essentially transparent work such as an essay. So I think we need to work towards emphasizing this distinction more clearly, and then formulate precisely what expectations there are from a ''work'' that is considered free content.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: And maybe "freedom to study" is good enough as a license requirement? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 03:38, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: This is one of the cases where the absence of a clause restricting freedoms may already meet the requirements, I think. Generally, you're free to study and apply knowledge from a work, unless the terms under which you have done that restrict you from doing so. What I think is important, especially if we want this definition to be a superset of the free software definition, is that we make it clear that the work itself must be available in a format suitable for modification. Whether or not the license protects that state of transparency is optional.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:54, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Non-commercial not free? ==<br />
<br />
It seems very arbitrary to call popular non-commercial licenses such as CreativeCommons Attrbution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike non-free! I believe all current usages of the term free content or free license allow a non-commercial clause. Very little content will be free under this definition as few content creators allow other people to profit from their hard work without paying royalties. I see no reason why a license prohibiting the receiver from profiting from content he got for nothing can not be called free.<br />
<br />
In fact, I think CC A-NC-SA is the model minimum free license, as it makes use of most of the restriction clauses permitted here plus NonCommercial. This definition should allow non-commercial licenses to fall under this umbrella. The interests of Wikimedia can still be satisfied by saying only Comercial Free Content and Fair Use were allowed. Prohibiting the reuser from making profit serves to protect the free status of the content, thus justifying its use as a restriction in the license. [[User:59.94.2.232|59.94.2.232]] 06:55, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: You can find my thoughts on the Creative Commons NC licenses [http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC here]. The idea that any kind of commercial venture is an "evil" from which people must be "protected" is a highly fallacious one; indeed, it is exactly the commercial use of free content and free software that has enabled some of the most exciting projects today, ranging from the adoption of free software in large sections of industry to the integration of Wikipedia content into search engines, CD-ROMs, and existing lookup tools. ''Especially'' in a collaborative context, it is essential to grant this freedom from the start, as it is virtually impossible to get permission from any contributor to a wiki for a particular commercial use.<br />
<br />
: It is perfectly alright for authors and artists not to reliniquish rights in accordance with this definition. But the resulting works should not be called "free". There can be no compromise on the core freedoms in this definition. If anything, they may need to be expanded.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I think that the provision on free redistribution makes it quite impossible to simply "profit from others' hard work". If someone tried to derive unfair advantage from a work, then people are free to reject the offer and are very likely to find the work that the offer is based on under more reasonable terms. In fact, if a share-alike or copyleft clause is used, then you'd be likely to find whatever was added to the original work freely available too. NC clauses do nothing to prevent unfair usage, but will prevent many legit uses.--[[User:Kari Pahula|Kari Pahula]] 11:33, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Not to allow commercial re-use is a critical limitation, as Erik aptly pointed out in his essays, e.g. OpenSource-Jahrbuch 2006. So this content simply is NOT free. That's why Stallman does not support CC anymore, because the different models get to easily thrown into a single bucket altogether. The importance about the commercial clause is that some value-additions are ONLY possible in a commercial context, when it is possible to integrate the new content e.g. in Websites with advertisements, or sell packaged DVDs etc. To protect the idea of free it is enough to add Copyleft provisions. [[User:89.53.204.123|89.53.204.123]] 17:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: There is no such thing as simply profiting from others hard work. You can propagate, advertise and store their work, but these are all of benefit to the work's author (although this '''may''' require or at least be helped by the moral right of paternity). NC is a fundamental error, and the definition of NC is causing headaches. NC is another layer of permission culture, and is not Free. The FSF and DFSG freedom definitions require that work be allowed to be sold, so it is not true that they allow NC clauses. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:39, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: So - not surprisingly, I guess - I think that it is important to give some kind of recognition to those licenses that grant freedoms that are more flexible than an "all rights reserved" or "personal-use only" license. While I agree that it is not possible to accommodate those licenses within the current definition of "free" being debated here, I do think that these can and should be classified under a different brand of licenses that enable important freedoms that are palatable to different industries than would contemplate a "free" license. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 18:09, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Other Free Content Definitions ==<br />
<br />
A took the time to compile a list of other free content definitions, feel free to update: -- [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureDefinition Unoficial Free Culture UK Port of Stallman's Four Freedoms]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureGuidelines Unofficial Free Culture UK Port of the Debian Free Software Guidelines]<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content Wikipedia Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeroleplay.org/about Free RPG Community] (self-post)<br />
<br />
Edited & added fc-uk definitions --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=1548Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-05-03T16:11:10Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Source code */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
== Rewording Edit ==<br />
<br />
I submitted a relatively large change. While the diff itself may be big, especially in the preamble, but I don't think I've made significant changes to the tone of the content. As a result, I think it is probably alright coming this late.<br />
<br />
Here's a summary of the larger changes or set of changes that I made:<br />
<br />
I removed a number of "therefores", and a number of comma-separated clauses acting as parenthetical asides that I thought it could survive without. I tried to break up a few long sentences. This was all purely stylistic.<br />
<br />
I dropped the "in addition to a requirement of author attribution" from the preamble because it's clear without it (IMHO) and because it seems to qualify a statement about essential freedoms which we speak out against below. I think it's best to state clearly that there are essential freedoms and then there are some extra restrictions that do not in fact have an impact on these essential freedom. Attribution is one of these but need not be specially cases. This way it doesn't sound like an exception but an explanation that it is ''by definition'' free.<br />
<br />
In two paragraphs of the first three paragraphs there are these two lists:<br />
<br />
:artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents<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.<br />
<br />
They seem to be redundant so I've tried to reduce it to just one list where the the first list was.<br />
<br />
I've removed "regardless of their profession, their beliefs, their country of origin, or any other criteria" and just say "anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." I think it's just as clear and more general.<br />
<br />
I switched the strange switch into the second person in the paragraph with the god like creator. It read nice but was a jarring switch.<br />
<br />
I added a line or two mentioning that some licenses are also used purely to take away people's freedoms. ASCAP is a licensing organization. The last draft talks about licenses as if they are only used to give away freedom but they were first used to sell freedom in restrained ways.<br />
<br />
I was confused by the line: "Indeed, depending on the nature of the work, it may even be unethical to deny any of the enumerated freedoms above." It seems like our argument in this document is that it's always unethical, on some level, to restrict essential freedom. I think that this sort of confuses the issue and, in any case, don't add much where it was.<br />
<br />
I removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:This definition only covers freedom in terms of copyright law; usage of a work may be restricted by other laws.<br />
<br />
I guess I have two issues here. First, it's not clear what these other laws and this sounds very legalistic for a statement of principles. More importantly, it seems like we would want to oppose other types of freedoms articulated in other types of law as well. The FSD is useful in opposing patents just as well as copyright (which the overly forumlate OSD could not). I don't think it's necessary.<br />
<br />
I've removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:"Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work."<br />
<br />
Because I basically moved it into the list of essential freedoms above. There was already an example there and I think that this is important enough it's worth dealing with a little higher up in the document. I think it's now more clear and doesn't need to be mentioned below.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 02:01, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'll have another edit later. The main problem I have is with the changes in the first few paragraphs about "information goods". First, I don't like this phrase because it essentially adopts the language of information as property, a commodity. I find it somewhat amusing that you would choose this language given your objections to the word "content". ;-) I find the argument against attempts to equate information with physical property very persuasive, and am inclined to remove this phrase entirely from the document.<br />
<br />
: The second problem is with the change to the examples enumerated in the beginning. The ones chosen - "Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, .." - were chosen explicitly because the argument that ''these'' works should be free is strongest and most persuasive. Reworded, it essentially sounds like a declaration against copyright on "anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits". This can definitely not stay this way.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:54, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Sounds good. "Information goods" was clumsy and we're better off with out it.<br />
<br />
::I'm still worried by the list of things. We're suggestion, but not defining, the scope of the document here. Something to think about and work out in drafting period. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:36, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Fair Use ==<br />
<br />
Angela made the point that we should position our definition vs. the existing rights of fair use. This echoes some of the sentiments of Larry's response. So we should think about that before we take it live.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:09, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Made some further edits as per the above. Avoided explicitly mentioning fair use for now to avoid confusion, might add that later.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:28, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not entirely clear defining our position in regards to fair use should mean here. I'm concerned because (a) fair use is only in the US a few other countries. Some other juristictions have similar "fair dealing" law but there are important differences. It's also a balancing act left up to judges and can sometimes be very unclear. I'm also concerned because (b) fair use is a set of compromises that is supposed to balance what would be overly restricted copyright. Our argument here is that copyright ''is'' always overly restricted and that we need to not settle for fair use rights but for something more meaningful. Or am I completely off-base here? --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:44, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No, I think you're right. From an ethical perspective, I think that it is important that fair use rights are ''also'' protected and broadened, but I'm not sure if this belongs into this definition. For now, I have added the phrase "Only very limited freedoms are granted to others" to clarify that copyright is not absolute; perhaps that is sufficient.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 05:47, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I think an argument can be made that it is important that any definition expressly acknowledge fair use (US) or fair dealing (rest of the world) and/or any other exception or limitation to copyright law. This is because of recent judicial decisions that tend to find, for example, that one can contractually override exceptions to copyright law (such as reverse engineering). Thus, I think it could be important to clarify that licenses that satisfy the free content/expression definition are "fair use/fair dealing plus" and grant a layer of permissions in addition to and on top existing exceptions to copyright law. Happy to leave this up to community discussion, however.--[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 10:12, 1 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Fair use is not unified at all among countries, so referring to it in the definition would introduce uncertainty and complication (unless the definition also gives its own definition of fair use). Moreover, fair use is completely covered by the rights specified in the definition AFAIU. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:43, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I would submit that the issue of whether a specific acknowledgement that free licenses apply in addition to and on top of existing exceptions and limitations that exist at law should not be decided based on whether the term "fair use" is used or not. One can use the terminology that I have just used "exceptions and limitations at law." This encompasses jurisdictional differences. And it should not be the case that "fair use" or any other exceptions or limitations are covered by the rights specified in the definition. In fact, I would have thought that the entire point of free licenses is to carve out a space that exists beyond what is currently provided for by law. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 2:23, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Hi Mia. As far as I've understood you correctly, I don't agree. Your proposal doesn't encompass jurisdictional differences, it just ''hides'' them which is vastly different. If I read "exceptions and limitations at law", I don't know what the text is talking about because those exceptions and limitations are different depending on the jurisdiction. Consequently, the text has no normative value because people from different parts of the world will understand different things.<br />
<br />
:Let me stress it, because it is very important: ''the Definition should be totally independent of any local specifics''. There must be ''no international insecurity'' as to what legal system the definition is referring to when it is using a given expression. The obvious way to achieve this is to avoid any reference to regionally varying legal concepts (or only as a side note as is the case for moral rights; then fair use or legal exceptions to copyright might also be mentioned as a side note, not a constitutive part of the definition).<br />
<br />
:Please take example from the Free Software Definition: it is worded in terms which are clear for everyone in the world (assuming they speak English ;-)), it does not refer to any non-essential legal concept. Actually even the notion of copyright is not essential in the Free Software Definition: it is mentioned only as a common way of implementing the FSD, not as a constitutive part of the definition.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:05, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Effective Technical Measures ==<br />
<br />
In regards to the little back-and-forth about "effective technical measures." I now realize that you are using the term as a little legal term-of-art to distinguish between TPMs and things like formats or compression. However, I'm afraid it still blocks things like GPG/PGP encrypted email. I'm going to suggest a phrasing like, "technical measure designed to restrict the freedoms above from being exercised by the person to whom the work is distributed."<br />
<br />
This phrasing doesn't block things like encrypted email, compression, formats, etc. and doesn't require using a relatively obscure legal term. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:52, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Physical works (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: 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 />
:A requisite would be to replace "modified versions" with "modified copies". If one is allowed to make a "modified version" of a physical, autographic work of art, then the original is destroyed in the process. Not something we would like to encourage. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:02, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure we can really consider physical works to be covered by the definition: concepts like distribution, copying and modifications do not seem to really apply. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:50, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::You can read the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License]. It has been worded very carefully by artists and lawyers so that it ''does'' apply to physical works. The key is that there is a distinction between the ''original'' and ''copies''. Only ''copies'' can be distributed and modified (of course, this applies seamlessly in the digital world where any transmission of data is implicitly a copy). By recursivity, a ''copy'' becomes itself an ''original'' for the person who receives it, and can make ''copies of the copy'' (modified or not).<br />
<br />
:::All licenses need not be worded as carefully, but the Definition itself would be sub-optimal if its wording left this aspect onto the table.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:07, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::In which case I would note that when they say a ''copy'' they seem to be talking about a converting an original to a digital work for which the freedoms can then apply. The freedoms mentioned in the above license do not seem to apply to ''originals'' at all, in which case I would argue that Art Libre are really talking about digital works in their license and avoiding the whole question of physical works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:47, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::You understood wrongly. ''Copies'' in the Free Art License can be analog copies (e.g. you can make an analog copy of a painting, which gives you a different painting). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:50, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not sure it does: the license also talks about the freedom to modify copies which implies that the copies themselves must have the property of modifiability which, in my mind at least, implies they should be digital (certainly, painting copies would not seem to fall in this category). I'm not sure you can talk about free software/content freedoms in respect to non-software works without really talking about digital works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Modified copies means the modification can take place in the course of making the copy itself. Like if you make a parodic copy of Mona Lisa: you don't need to first make a verbatim copy and then modify it. However, you ''can'' modify a non-digital work (a painting, a piece of sculpture...). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:21, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the license authors should probably clarify that, the license seems to talk about the freedom to "modify the copies", but says nothing about the freedom to modify the reproduction process. Maybe the two things are the same thing but it would seem open to intepretation.<br />
::::::::As for modifying painting and sculptures, you are right, of course, you ''can'' modify physical works although it's not a freedom I think a lot of people would use for sculptures and it's a freedom generally implicit in physical property law: once you buy a painting or sculpture you are free to do what you like with it. OTOH, digital works need this freedom thanks to advent of things like DRM and non-modifiable file formats such as object code and PDFs. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Mmmh, you should not mix up physical property law and "intellectual property" law. Even if you bought the physical medium of an artwork, it doesn't give you the right to modify the work, because the "intellectual property" still belongs to the author (unless the rights were also granted or transferred by contract).<br />
:::::::::This is especially true in countries where the moral right of the author is protected by the law, by the way. In France, if you buy a painting and then decide to destroy or modify it, the author can sue you (and he will win). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]]<br />
::::::::::Have no fear, Antoine, I'm not mixing the two up at all and explicitly differentiated between them in my remarks above. My point was that when you purchase physical property you are implicitly free to what you like with it (i.e. modify it). That the Art Libre license makes reference to modification of copies seems to imply they are talking about digital works. But I think you didn't address all the points I made above.<br />
::::::::::Mmm... I'm not at all sure about your point about moral rights and modifying sculptures and paintings. I don't know a lot about moral rights law, but surely that would only apply if you publicly distributed the work or used the author's name in relation to the modified work? So are we talking about the freedom to modify or the freedom to distribute? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 15:11, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::No, not only. Moral right includes the right to the integrity of the work, so if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author. Moral right considers that the work is part of the personality of the author. (of course, in practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Things which are not works of the mind ==<br />
<br />
The word "content" is good for non-material commons, but what about "material commons" like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information, "commons" in general?. They need also a "free/freedom" definition. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 02:13, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). It is not only a legal category, but also a philosophical one: creation of works - art works, software works, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. The additions you are proposing do not belong to this category. Trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message only destroys the meaning of the message and transforms it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful.<br />
<br />
:Of course, this does not preclude someone else from giving a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. Only, the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents. <br />
<br />
:(btw., this kind of thing probably belongs in a FAQ ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 02:27, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Source code ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Erik_M%C3%B6ller]] said: 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.<br />
<br />
:The common position among the Free Art License people (not that I always agree with them ;-)) is that providing the source code is a subcase of allowing to study the work. They argue that the source code is necessary to study software, while there is no such necessity for works of art.<br />
<br />
:One could counter-argue that even if source code is not necessary to study a piece of non-software content, it is nonetheless very practical for doing modifications (the GNU GPL defines source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it").<br />
<br />
:Of course another problem is that some kinds a work do not allow any clear notion of source code. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:11, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::From my own perspective, as a representative of the [http://www.freeroleplay.org/ Free RPG Community] there are many examples where a source code is a real requirement. A pen-and-paper roleplaying game can be both an artistic work as well as a functional work. Roleplaying games can be converted into software computer games so source code can be required for this. Many players frequently make house rules and ammendments so access to source code is requisite for this - both to the rules and to the . There are so many reasons to have a source code even from just our narrow field.<br />
<br />
::This is quite aside from the fact that access to the source code of a free content work might be necessary not only to study the work, but to study how the work was put together. Trivially, this could mean as little as being able to examine a word processor document to see what fonts are being used, etc. A more important example could be being able to examine a layered image file to see how a image effect was put together.<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure which works you are referring to that do not have a clear notion of a source code: the only such works I am aware of are non-digital works in which case the other freedoms may not apply anyway (see my remarks above). Please see my remarks here for more infomation: [[Talk:Definition]] --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 00:00, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I fullheartedly agree that the distinction between artistic and functional works is a fallacy (I have already said this to various people, including RMS). That is why, in my opinion, the same broad freedoms should apply to free contents as well as free software (the wording of the definition can differ of course, and that's why we are here ;-)).<br />
<br />
:::As for freedom for physical works, you can read my answer to your remark ;-)) <br />
:::But even for digital works, can simple "transparent" binary data be considered the source code for everything? Let's say I have the WAV recording of a concert. What do the bytes tell me about how the guitarist played the strings of his instrument, or even what precise notes he played, with what effects etc.?<br />
<br />
:::Software writing is a symbolic activity (writing code is writing text according to certain conventions). As such, its representation as text (i.e. ASCII or Unicode bytes) is a perfect mirror of the way it functions. It is not necessarily the case with other types of works.<br />
<br />
:::But I do agree that access to some kind of "source code" is important in many cases. Complicated isn't it? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::It is indeed complicated and I'm glad you also disagree with RMS false distinction between "artistic", "functional" and "political" works.<br />
<br />
::::IMHO I always found the GPL definition of source code (BTW, why isn't the GPL listed as one of the free content licenses?) to be the simplest and most flexible. For example, when start talking about things such as music recordings, photographs, etc, in other words works that originate with physical objects, it is often better to apply the freedoms to the digital copies only. In your example, it is prohibitive to provide the recording studio, instruments, etc that produced the original work, but it is simple enough to provide the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", in other words, the uncompressed WAV files or the music in some other modifiable format of the digital copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:01, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem with source code in works of art is that it's always hard to determine what is source code. Look at flash movies made by jibjab.com: they use photos and drawings to create animated flash movies with words and music which usually are themselves derivative works. So what is source code? Original song with it's score? Original photos? Code they wrote using this or that program for creating flash animations? All of above? I'm not sure such a requirement will have a positive impact on culture. It is important to have an access to work without DRM restrictions. But asking an author for all the pieces he used in the process of creaton is not necessery and practical. There we have a problem of tools: most advanced programs for creating digital works are proprietary. Asking for a source code of a work is of little practical value if we do not have access for tools itself. Following that logic we could ask authors to use only free software tools what itself is a good thing, but this seems simply going too far. My opinion is, that source code is not necessity, much more important is using open formats whenever possible (and please note, that even now it's not easy if you create multimedia works). [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:24, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I couldn't disagree more strongly: from my own experience the freedom to modify or study a work is strongly predicated on having access to the source. Without the access to the source, these freedoms are meaningless license verbiage. Again, drawing from my own experiences in the pen-and-paper RPG world, the recent "open gaming movement" used the [http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Open Gaming License] was a (partial) copyleft license with no source requirement used to license the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying system (more popularly called the d20 System). The original d20 system documents whre provided in a modifiable format. However, without the source requirement downstream publishers simply published derivative works in PDFs and hardcopies only, effectively creating a dead-end for the works, taking from the commons but not giving back to it.<br />
<br />
::::I also dispute that it isn't clear what the source code is: the GPL clearly defines this as "preferred form of the work for making modifications" which, in the cases you mention above, obviously resolves the issue for the sources of digital works. In the case of the flash animation, the source is clearly the original SWF file, the image file is its own source, and I don't see an amiguity over that (whether requirements to provide all the elements used to compose a work should also be needed is a seperate discussion).<br />
<br />
::::The argument regarding properietary programs also seems spurious: in the software world not all compilers are free software, cheap or easy to access but that doesn't have any bearing on whether you license software written for these compilers as free software. Whether requiring free software tools for free content is a completely seperate discussion. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:34, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ricardo, what you say is "in case of works of art source code means open format". Thus basically what we have to say is very similar, we define terminology differently. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 12:10, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::That's interesting, please expand on your definition of open format: do you think the issue can be resolved by simply requiring publication in open formats, such as ODT? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:30, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::AFAIK, the common definition of open format is a format which is openly documented and (preferably) unencumbered by patents. It is insufficient w.r.t. your criteria, because by this definition PDF and Postcript are open formats (anyone can read and implement the [http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html PDF specification]). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:15, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::Please note, that sometimes also formats under "reasonable and non-discriminatory license" (RAND) are treated as open, which is a big lie. I'm not sure what status PDF and Postcript have, but it seems that they are simply free. Why it is hard to extract data from PDF? I'm trying to understand in what situation open format is not enough, maybe i'm missing something. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 18:11, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free expression? ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: Free expression 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 />
== Right to use and perform ==<br />
<br />
Apparently the current definition takes as implicit the first freedom of free software (the right to use/execute).<br />
I suggest to make it explicit, because it allows to include "related rights" such as the right to perform (e.g. a play, a song...):<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. This includes all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Right to study and apply the "information" ==<br />
<br />
I find the phrasing "study and apply the information" a bit confusing. The word "information" seems to imply that only the symbolic (e.g. textual) content of the work can be studied, not its inner workings or the nuances of its making. Also, as pointed elsewhere, "information" is really sterile.<br />
<br />
I would rephrase it:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and use the knowledge gained from the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:29, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Applying Knowledge ==<br />
<br />
First freedom now is worded as "the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it". This may however be a problem when you think about it in context of scientific research. Copyright is covering just a publication, but there may be (and usually are) also included other "IP" law such as patents. I understand "applying knowledge" as a very wide term. I'm not aware of any exisiting license which may guarantee that patents will be not used. However this is a very good statement if we want to describe our ideals.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 02:06, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I think it is an absolute fact that free content cannot be impeded by patents. We need to work towards a clearer distinction, I think, between expectations we have from the works which are called free content, and from the licenses which are used for free content. I don't need to use a complex license that has clauses about patents if that is never relevant to me. Similarly, regarding earlier discussions about source code, I don't need anything in my license about source code if I'm talking about an essentially transparent work such as an essay. So I think we need to work towards emphasizing this distinction more clearly, and then formulate precisely what expectations there are from a ''work'' that is considered free content.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: And maybe "freedom to study" is good enough as a license requirement? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 03:38, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: This is one of the cases where the absence of a clause restricting freedoms may already meet the requirements, I think. Generally, you're free to study and apply knowledge from a work, unless the terms under which you have done that restrict you from doing so. What I think is important, especially if we want this definition to be a superset of the free software definition, is that we make it clear that the work itself must be available in a format suitable for modification. Whether or not the license protects that state of transparency is optional.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:54, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Non-commercial not free? ==<br />
<br />
It seems very arbitrary to call popular non-commercial licenses such as CreativeCommons Attrbution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike non-free! I believe all current usages of the term free content or free license allow a non-commercial clause. Very little content will be free under this definition as few content creators allow other people to profit from their hard work without paying royalties. I see no reason why a license prohibiting the receiver from profiting from content he got for nothing can not be called free.<br />
<br />
In fact, I think CC A-NC-SA is the model minimum free license, as it makes use of most of the restriction clauses permitted here plus NonCommercial. This definition should allow non-commercial licenses to fall under this umbrella. The interests of Wikimedia can still be satisfied by saying only Comercial Free Content and Fair Use were allowed. Prohibiting the reuser from making profit serves to protect the free status of the content, thus justifying its use as a restriction in the license. [[User:59.94.2.232|59.94.2.232]] 06:55, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: You can find my thoughts on the Creative Commons NC licenses [http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC here]. The idea that any kind of commercial venture is an "evil" from which people must be "protected" is a highly fallacious one; indeed, it is exactly the commercial use of free content and free software that has enabled some of the most exciting projects today, ranging from the adoption of free software in large sections of industry to the integration of Wikipedia content into search engines, CD-ROMs, and existing lookup tools. ''Especially'' in a collaborative context, it is essential to grant this freedom from the start, as it is virtually impossible to get permission from any contributor to a wiki for a particular commercial use.<br />
<br />
: It is perfectly alright for authors and artists not to reliniquish rights in accordance with this definition. But the resulting works should not be called "free". There can be no compromise on the core freedoms in this definition. If anything, they may need to be expanded.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I think that the provision on free redistribution makes it quite impossible to simply "profit from others' hard work". If someone tried to derive unfair advantage from a work, then people are free to reject the offer and are very likely to find the work that the offer is based on under more reasonable terms. In fact, if a share-alike or copyleft clause is used, then you'd be likely to find whatever was added to the original work freely available too. NC clauses do nothing to prevent unfair usage, but will prevent many legit uses.--[[User:Kari Pahula|Kari Pahula]] 11:33, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Not to allow commercial re-use is a critical limitation, as Erik aptly pointed out in his essays, e.g. OpenSource-Jahrbuch 2006. So this content simply is NOT free. That's why Stallman does not support CC anymore, because the different models get to easily thrown into a single bucket altogether. The importance about the commercial clause is that some value-additions are ONLY possible in a commercial context, when it is possible to integrate the new content e.g. in Websites with advertisements, or sell packaged DVDs etc. To protect the idea of free it is enough to add Copyleft provisions. [[User:89.53.204.123|89.53.204.123]] 17:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: There is no such thing as simply profiting from others hard work. You can propagate, advertise and store their work, but these are all of benefit to the work's author (although this '''may''' require or at least be helped by the moral right of paternity). NC is a fundamental error, and the definition of NC is causing headaches. NC is another layer of permission culture, and is not Free. The FSF and DFSG freedom definitions require that work be allowed to be sold, so it is not true that they allow NC clauses. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:39, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: So - not surprisingly, I guess - I think that it is important to give some kind of recognition to those licenses that grant freedoms that are more flexible than an "all rights reserved" or "personal-use only" license. While I agree that it is not possible to accommodate those licenses within the current definition of "free" being debated here, I do think that these can and should be classified under a different brand of licenses that enable important freedoms that are palatable to different industries than would contemplate a "free" license. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 18:09, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Other Free Content Definitions ==<br />
<br />
A took the time to compile a list of other free content definitions, feel free to update: -- [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureDefinition Unoficial Free Culture UK Port of Stallman's Four Freedoms]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureGuidelines Unofficial Free Culture UK Port of the Debian Free Software Guidelines]<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content Wikipedia Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeroleplay.org/about Free RPG Community] (self-post)<br />
<br />
Edited & added fc-uk definitions --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=1543Talk:Definition/Unstable2006-05-03T10:10:53Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: /* Source code */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
== Rewording Edit ==<br />
<br />
I submitted a relatively large change. While the diff itself may be big, especially in the preamble, but I don't think I've made significant changes to the tone of the content. As a result, I think it is probably alright coming this late.<br />
<br />
Here's a summary of the larger changes or set of changes that I made:<br />
<br />
I removed a number of "therefores", and a number of comma-separated clauses acting as parenthetical asides that I thought it could survive without. I tried to break up a few long sentences. This was all purely stylistic.<br />
<br />
I dropped the "in addition to a requirement of author attribution" from the preamble because it's clear without it (IMHO) and because it seems to qualify a statement about essential freedoms which we speak out against below. I think it's best to state clearly that there are essential freedoms and then there are some extra restrictions that do not in fact have an impact on these essential freedom. Attribution is one of these but need not be specially cases. This way it doesn't sound like an exception but an explanation that it is ''by definition'' free.<br />
<br />
In two paragraphs of the first three paragraphs there are these two lists:<br />
<br />
:artistic works, scientific and educational materials, commentary, reports, and documents<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.<br />
<br />
They seem to be redundant so I've tried to reduce it to just one list where the the first list was.<br />
<br />
I've removed "regardless of their profession, their beliefs, their country of origin, or any other criteria" and just say "anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." I think it's just as clear and more general.<br />
<br />
I switched the strange switch into the second person in the paragraph with the god like creator. It read nice but was a jarring switch.<br />
<br />
I added a line or two mentioning that some licenses are also used purely to take away people's freedoms. ASCAP is a licensing organization. The last draft talks about licenses as if they are only used to give away freedom but they were first used to sell freedom in restrained ways.<br />
<br />
I was confused by the line: "Indeed, depending on the nature of the work, it may even be unethical to deny any of the enumerated freedoms above." It seems like our argument in this document is that it's always unethical, on some level, to restrict essential freedom. I think that this sort of confuses the issue and, in any case, don't add much where it was.<br />
<br />
I removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:This definition only covers freedom in terms of copyright law; usage of a work may be restricted by other laws.<br />
<br />
I guess I have two issues here. First, it's not clear what these other laws and this sounds very legalistic for a statement of principles. More importantly, it seems like we would want to oppose other types of freedoms articulated in other types of law as well. The FSD is useful in opposing patents just as well as copyright (which the overly forumlate OSD could not). I don't think it's necessary.<br />
<br />
I've removed this phrase:<br />
<br />
:"Explicitly, it ''must not'' limit commercial use of the work."<br />
<br />
Because I basically moved it into the list of essential freedoms above. There was already an example there and I think that this is important enough it's worth dealing with a little higher up in the document. I think it's now more clear and doesn't need to be mentioned below.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 02:01, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'll have another edit later. The main problem I have is with the changes in the first few paragraphs about "information goods". First, I don't like this phrase because it essentially adopts the language of information as property, a commodity. I find it somewhat amusing that you would choose this language given your objections to the word "content". ;-) I find the argument against attempts to equate information with physical property very persuasive, and am inclined to remove this phrase entirely from the document.<br />
<br />
: The second problem is with the change to the examples enumerated in the beginning. The ones chosen - "Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, .." - were chosen explicitly because the argument that ''these'' works should be free is strongest and most persuasive. Reworded, it essentially sounds like a declaration against copyright on "anything that can be represented as a sequence of bits". This can definitely not stay this way.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:54, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Sounds good. "Information goods" was clumsy and we're better off with out it.<br />
<br />
::I'm still worried by the list of things. We're suggestion, but not defining, the scope of the document here. Something to think about and work out in drafting period. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:36, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Fair Use ==<br />
<br />
Angela made the point that we should position our definition vs. the existing rights of fair use. This echoes some of the sentiments of Larry's response. So we should think about that before we take it live.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:09, 30 April 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Made some further edits as per the above. Avoided explicitly mentioning fair use for now to avoid confusion, might add that later.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:28, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I'm not entirely clear defining our position in regards to fair use should mean here. I'm concerned because (a) fair use is only in the US a few other countries. Some other juristictions have similar "fair dealing" law but there are important differences. It's also a balancing act left up to judges and can sometimes be very unclear. I'm also concerned because (b) fair use is a set of compromises that is supposed to balance what would be overly restricted copyright. Our argument here is that copyright ''is'' always overly restricted and that we need to not settle for fair use rights but for something more meaningful. Or am I completely off-base here? --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:44, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: No, I think you're right. From an ethical perspective, I think that it is important that fair use rights are ''also'' protected and broadened, but I'm not sure if this belongs into this definition. For now, I have added the phrase "Only very limited freedoms are granted to others" to clarify that copyright is not absolute; perhaps that is sufficient.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 05:47, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::I think an argument can be made that it is important that any definition expressly acknowledge fair use (US) or fair dealing (rest of the world) and/or any other exception or limitation to copyright law. This is because of recent judicial decisions that tend to find, for example, that one can contractually override exceptions to copyright law (such as reverse engineering). Thus, I think it could be important to clarify that licenses that satisfy the free content/expression definition are "fair use/fair dealing plus" and grant a layer of permissions in addition to and on top existing exceptions to copyright law. Happy to leave this up to community discussion, however.--[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 10:12, 1 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Fair use is not unified at all among countries, so referring to it in the definition would introduce uncertainty and complication (unless the definition also gives its own definition of fair use). Moreover, fair use is completely covered by the rights specified in the definition AFAIU. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:43, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I would submit that the issue of whether a specific acknowledgement that free licenses apply in addition to and on top of existing exceptions and limitations that exist at law should not be decided based on whether the term "fair use" is used or not. One can use the terminology that I have just used "exceptions and limitations at law." This encompasses jurisdictional differences. And it should not be the case that "fair use" or any other exceptions or limitations are covered by the rights specified in the definition. In fact, I would have thought that the entire point of free licenses is to carve out a space that exists beyond what is currently provided for by law. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 2:23, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Hi Mia. As far as I've understood you correctly, I don't agree. Your proposal doesn't encompass jurisdictional differences, it just ''hides'' them which is vastly different. If I read "exceptions and limitations at law", I don't know what the text is talking about because those exceptions and limitations are different depending on the jurisdiction. Consequently, the text has no normative value because people from different parts of the world will understand different things.<br />
<br />
:Let me stress it, because it is very important: ''the Definition should be totally independent of any local specifics''. There must be ''no international insecurity'' as to what legal system the definition is referring to when it is using a given expression. The obvious way to achieve this is to avoid any reference to regionally varying legal concepts (or only as a side note as is the case for moral rights; then fair use or legal exceptions to copyright might also be mentioned as a side note, not a constitutive part of the definition).<br />
<br />
:Please take example from the Free Software Definition: it is worded in terms which are clear for everyone in the world (assuming they speak English ;-)), it does not refer to any non-essential legal concept. Actually even the notion of copyright is not essential in the Free Software Definition: it is mentioned only as a common way of implementing the FSD, not as a constitutive part of the definition.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:05, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Effective Technical Measures ==<br />
<br />
In regards to the little back-and-forth about "effective technical measures." I now realize that you are using the term as a little legal term-of-art to distinguish between TPMs and things like formats or compression. However, I'm afraid it still blocks things like GPG/PGP encrypted email. I'm going to suggest a phrasing like, "technical measure designed to restrict the freedoms above from being exercised by the person to whom the work is distributed."<br />
<br />
This phrasing doesn't block things like encrypted email, compression, formats, etc. and doesn't require using a relatively obscure legal term. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 05:52, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Physical works (non-digital) ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: 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 />
:A requisite would be to replace "modified versions" with "modified copies". If one is allowed to make a "modified version" of a physical, autographic work of art, then the original is destroyed in the process. Not something we would like to encourage. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:02, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure we can really consider physical works to be covered by the definition: concepts like distribution, copying and modifications do not seem to really apply. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 23:50, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::You can read the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License]. It has been worded very carefully by artists and lawyers so that it ''does'' apply to physical works. The key is that there is a distinction between the ''original'' and ''copies''. Only ''copies'' can be distributed and modified (of course, this applies seamlessly in the digital world where any transmission of data is implicitly a copy). By recursivity, a ''copy'' becomes itself an ''original'' for the person who receives it, and can make ''copies of the copy'' (modified or not).<br />
<br />
:::All licenses need not be worded as carefully, but the Definition itself would be sub-optimal if its wording left this aspect onto the table.--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:07, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::In which case I would note that when they say a ''copy'' they seem to be talking about a converting an original to a digital work for which the freedoms can then apply. The freedoms mentioned in the above license do not seem to apply to ''originals'' at all, in which case I would argue that Art Libre are really talking about digital works in their license and avoiding the whole question of physical works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:47, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::You understood wrongly. ''Copies'' in the Free Art License can be analog copies (e.g. you can make an analog copy of a painting, which gives you a different painting). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:50, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not sure it does: the license also talks about the freedom to modify copies which implies that the copies themselves must have the property of modifiability which, in my mind at least, implies they should be digital (certainly, painting copies would not seem to fall in this category). I'm not sure you can talk about free software/content freedoms in respect to non-software works without really talking about digital works. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Modified copies means the modification can take place in the course of making the copy itself. Like if you make a parodic copy of Mona Lisa: you don't need to first make a verbatim copy and then modify it. However, you ''can'' modify a non-digital work (a painting, a piece of sculpture...). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:21, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think the license authors should probably clarify that, the license seems to talk about the freedom to "modify the copies", but says nothing about the freedom to modify the reproduction process. Maybe the two things are the same thing but it would seem open to intepretation.<br />
::::::::As for modifying painting and sculptures, you are right, of course, you ''can'' modify physical works although it's not a freedom I think a lot of people would use for sculptures and it's a freedom generally implicit in physical property law: once you buy a painting or sculpture you are free to do what you like with it. OTOH, digital works need this freedom thanks to advent of things like DRM and non-modifiable file formats such as object code and PDFs. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Mmmh, you should not mix up physical property law and "intellectual property" law. Even if you bought the physical medium of an artwork, it doesn't give you the right to modify the work, because the "intellectual property" still belongs to the author (unless the rights were also granted or transferred by contract).<br />
:::::::::This is especially true in countries where the moral right of the author is protected by the law, by the way. In France, if you buy a painting and then decide to destroy or modify it, the author can sue you (and he will win). --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]]<br />
::::::::::Have no fear, Antoine, I'm not mixing the two up at all and explicitly differentiated between them in my remarks above. My point was that when you purchase physical property you are implicitly free to what you like with it (i.e. modify it). That the Art Libre license makes reference to modification of copies seems to imply they are talking about digital works. But I think you didn't address all the points I made above.<br />
::::::::::Mmm... I'm not at all sure about your point about moral rights and modifying sculptures and paintings. I don't know a lot about moral rights law, but surely that would only apply if you publicly distributed the work or used the author's name in relation to the modified work? So are we talking about the freedom to modify or the freedom to distribute? --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 15:11, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::No, not only. Moral right includes the right to the integrity of the work, so if you modify a work (even privately), you infringe on the moral right of the author. Moral right considers that the work is part of the personality of the author. (of course, in practice, the author cannot exercise his moral right if he doesn't learn about the modification or destruction of the work) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Things which are not works of the mind ==<br />
<br />
The word "content" is good for non-material commons, but what about "material commons" like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information, "commons" in general?. They need also a "free/freedom" definition. --[[User:Vjrj|Vjrj]] 02:13, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: The Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). It is not only a legal category, but also a philosophical one: creation of works - art works, software works, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. The additions you are proposing do not belong to this category. Trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message only destroys the meaning of the message and transforms it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful.<br />
<br />
:Of course, this does not preclude someone else from giving a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. Only, the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents. <br />
<br />
:(btw., this kind of thing probably belongs in a FAQ ;-)) --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 02:27, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Source code ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Erik_M%C3%B6ller]] said: 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.<br />
<br />
:The common position among the Free Art License people (not that I always agree with them ;-)) is that providing the source code is a subcase of allowing to study the work. They argue that the source code is necessary to study software, while there is no such necessity for works of art.<br />
<br />
:One could counter-argue that even if source code is not necessary to study a piece of non-software content, it is nonetheless very practical for doing modifications (the GNU GPL defines source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it").<br />
<br />
:Of course another problem is that some kinds a work do not allow any clear notion of source code. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:11, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::From my own perspective, as a representative of the [http://www.freeroleplay.org/ Free RPG Community] there are many examples where a source code is a real requirement. A pen-and-paper roleplaying game can be both an artistic work as well as a functional work. Roleplaying games can be converted into software computer games so source code can be required for this. Many players frequently make house rules and ammendments so access to source code is requisite for this - both to the rules and to the . There are so many reasons to have a source code even from just our narrow field.<br />
<br />
::This is quite aside from the fact that access to the source code of a free content work might be necessary not only to study the work, but to study how the work was put together. Trivially, this could mean as little as being able to examine a word processor document to see what fonts are being used, etc. A more important example could be being able to examine a layered image file to see how a image effect was put together.<br />
<br />
::I'm not sure which works you are referring to that do not have a clear notion of a source code: the only such works I am aware of are non-digital works in which case the other freedoms may not apply anyway (see my remarks above). Please see my remarks here for more infomation: [[Talk:Definition]] --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 00:00, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Ricardo, I fullheartedly agree that the distinction between artistic and functional works is a fallacy (I have already said this to various people, including RMS). That is why, in my opinion, the same broad freedoms should apply to free contents as well as free software (the wording of the definition can differ of course, and that's why we are here ;-)).<br />
<br />
:::As for freedom for physical works, you can read my answer to your remark ;-)) <br />
:::But even for digital works, can simple "transparent" binary data be considered the source code for everything? Let's say I have the WAV recording of a concert. What do the bytes tell me about how the guitarist played the strings of his instrument, or even what precise notes he played, with what effects etc.?<br />
<br />
:::Software writing is a symbolic activity (writing code is writing text according to certain conventions). As such, its representation as text (i.e. ASCII or Unicode bytes) is a perfect mirror of the way it functions. It is not necessarily the case with other types of works.<br />
<br />
:::But I do agree that access to some kind of "source code" is important in many cases. Complicated isn't it? --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::It is indeed complicated and I'm glad you also disagree with RMS false distinction between "artistic", "functional" and "political" works.<br />
<br />
::::IMHO I always found the GPL definition of source code (BTW, why isn't the GPL listed as one of the free content licenses?) to be the simplest and most flexible. For example, when start talking about things such as music recordings, photographs, etc, in other words works that originate with physical objects, it is often better to apply the freedoms to the digital copies only. In your example, it is prohibitive to provide the recording studio, instruments, etc that produced the original work, but it is simple enough to provide the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", in other words, the uncompressed WAV files or the music in some other modifiable format of the digital copy. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 12:01, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem with source code in works of art is that it's always hard to determine what is source code. Look at flash movies made by jibjab.com: they use photos and drawings to create animated flash movies with words and music which usually are themselves derivative works. So what is source code? Original song with it's score? Original photos? Code they wrote using this or that program for creating flash animations? All of above? I'm not sure such a requirement will have a positive impact on culture. It is important to have an access to work without DRM restrictions. But asking an author for all the pieces he used in the process of creaton is not necessery and practical. There we have a problem of tools: most advanced programs for creating digital works are proprietary. Asking for a source code of a work is of little practical value if we do not have access for tools itself. Following that logic we could ask authors to use only free software tools what itself is a good thing, but this seems simply going too far. My opinion is, that source code is not necessity, much more important is using open formats whenever possible (and please note, that even now it's not easy if you create multimedia works). [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 17:24, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::::I couldn't disagree more strongly: from my own experience the freedom to modify or study a work is strongly predicated on having access to the source. Without the access to the source, these freedoms are meaningless license verbiage. Again, drawing from my own experiences in the pen-and-paper RPG world, the recent "open gaming movement" used the [http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Open Gaming License] was a (partial) copyleft license with no source requirement used to license the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying system (more popularly called the d20 System). The original d20 system documents whre provided in a modifiable format. However, without the source requirement downstream publishers simply published derivative works in PDFs and hardcopies only, effectively creating a dead-end for the works, taking from the commons but not giving back to it.<br />
<br />
::::I also dispute that it isn't clear what the source code is: the GPL clearly defines this as "preferred form of the work for making modifications" which, in the cases you mention above, obviously resolves the issue for the sources of digital works. In the case of the flash animation, the source is clearly the original SWF file, the image file is its own source, and I don't see an amiguity over that (whether requirements to provide all the elements used to compose a work should also be needed is a seperate discussion).<br />
<br />
::::The argument regarding properietary programs also seems spurious: in the software world not all compilers are free software, cheap or easy to access but that doesn't have any bearing on whether you license software written for these compilers as free software. Whether requiring free software tools for free content is a completely seperate discussion. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:34, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ricardo, what you say is "in case of works of art source code means open format". Thus basically what we have to say is very similar, we define terminology differently. [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 12:10, 3 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Free expression? ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Rgladwell]] said: Free expression 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 />
== Right to use and perform ==<br />
<br />
Apparently the current definition takes as implicit the first freedom of free software (the right to use/execute).<br />
I suggest to make it explicit, because it allows to include "related rights" such as the right to perform (e.g. a play, a song...):<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to use and perform the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. This includes all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Right to study and apply the "information" ==<br />
<br />
I find the phrasing "study and apply the information" a bit confusing. The word "information" seems to imply that only the symbolic (e.g. textual) content of the work can be studied, not its inner workings or the nuances of its making. Also, as pointed elsewhere, "information" is really sterile.<br />
<br />
I would rephrase it:<br />
<br />
* '''The freedom to study the work and use the knowledge gained from the work:''' The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".<br />
<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 01:29, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Applying Knowledge ==<br />
<br />
First freedom now is worded as "the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it". This may however be a problem when you think about it in context of scientific research. Copyright is covering just a publication, but there may be (and usually are) also included other "IP" law such as patents. I understand "applying knowledge" as a very wide term. I'm not aware of any exisiting license which may guarantee that patents will be not used. However this is a very good statement if we want to describe our ideals.[[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 02:06, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I think it is an absolute fact that free content cannot be impeded by patents. We need to work towards a clearer distinction, I think, between expectations we have from the works which are called free content, and from the licenses which are used for free content. I don't need to use a complex license that has clauses about patents if that is never relevant to me. Similarly, regarding earlier discussions about source code, I don't need anything in my license about source code if I'm talking about an essentially transparent work such as an essay. So I think we need to work towards emphasizing this distinction more clearly, and then formulate precisely what expectations there are from a ''work'' that is considered free content.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: And maybe "freedom to study" is good enough as a license requirement? [[User:JaroslawLipszyc|JaroslawLipszyc]] 03:38, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: This is one of the cases where the absence of a clause restricting freedoms may already meet the requirements, I think. Generally, you're free to study and apply knowledge from a work, unless the terms under which you have done that restrict you from doing so. What I think is important, especially if we want this definition to be a superset of the free software definition, is that we make it clear that the work itself must be available in a format suitable for modification. Whether or not the license protects that state of transparency is optional.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:54, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Non-commercial not free? ==<br />
<br />
It seems very arbitrary to call popular non-commercial licenses such as CreativeCommons Attrbution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike non-free! I believe all current usages of the term free content or free license allow a non-commercial clause. Very little content will be free under this definition as few content creators allow other people to profit from their hard work without paying royalties. I see no reason why a license prohibiting the receiver from profiting from content he got for nothing can not be called free.<br />
<br />
In fact, I think CC A-NC-SA is the model minimum free license, as it makes use of most of the restriction clauses permitted here plus NonCommercial. This definition should allow non-commercial licenses to fall under this umbrella. The interests of Wikimedia can still be satisfied by saying only Comercial Free Content and Fair Use were allowed. Prohibiting the reuser from making profit serves to protect the free status of the content, thus justifying its use as a restriction in the license. [[User:59.94.2.232|59.94.2.232]] 06:55, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: You can find my thoughts on the Creative Commons NC licenses [http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC here]. The idea that any kind of commercial venture is an "evil" from which people must be "protected" is a highly fallacious one; indeed, it is exactly the commercial use of free content and free software that has enabled some of the most exciting projects today, ranging from the adoption of free software in large sections of industry to the integration of Wikipedia content into search engines, CD-ROMs, and existing lookup tools. ''Especially'' in a collaborative context, it is essential to grant this freedom from the start, as it is virtually impossible to get permission from any contributor to a wiki for a particular commercial use.<br />
<br />
: It is perfectly alright for authors and artists not to reliniquish rights in accordance with this definition. But the resulting works should not be called "free". There can be no compromise on the core freedoms in this definition. If anything, they may need to be expanded.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 09:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I think that the provision on free redistribution makes it quite impossible to simply "profit from others' hard work". If someone tried to derive unfair advantage from a work, then people are free to reject the offer and are very likely to find the work that the offer is based on under more reasonable terms. In fact, if a share-alike or copyleft clause is used, then you'd be likely to find whatever was added to the original work freely available too. NC clauses do nothing to prevent unfair usage, but will prevent many legit uses.--[[User:Kari Pahula|Kari Pahula]] 11:33, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Not to allow commercial re-use is a critical limitation, as Erik aptly pointed out in his essays, e.g. OpenSource-Jahrbuch 2006. So this content simply is NOT free. That's why Stallman does not support CC anymore, because the different models get to easily thrown into a single bucket altogether. The importance about the commercial clause is that some value-additions are ONLY possible in a commercial context, when it is possible to integrate the new content e.g. in Websites with advertisements, or sell packaged DVDs etc. To protect the idea of free it is enough to add Copyleft provisions. [[User:89.53.204.123|89.53.204.123]] 17:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: There is no such thing as simply profiting from others hard work. You can propagate, advertise and store their work, but these are all of benefit to the work's author (although this '''may''' require or at least be helped by the moral right of paternity). NC is a fundamental error, and the definition of NC is causing headaches. NC is another layer of permission culture, and is not Free. The FSF and DFSG freedom definitions require that work be allowed to be sold, so it is not true that they allow NC clauses. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:39, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::: So - not surprisingly, I guess - I think that it is important to give some kind of recognition to those licenses that grant freedoms that are more flexible than an "all rights reserved" or "personal-use only" license. While I agree that it is not possible to accommodate those licenses within the current definition of "free" being debated here, I do think that these can and should be classified under a different brand of licenses that enable important freedoms that are palatable to different industries than would contemplate a "free" license. --[[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]] 18:09, 2 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Other Free Content Definitions ==<br />
<br />
A took the time to compile a list of other free content definitions, feel free to update: -- [[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 14:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureDefinition Unoficial Free Culture UK Port of Stallman's Four Freedoms]<br />
* [http://www.freeculture.org.uk/TheFreeCultureGuidelines Unofficial Free Culture UK Port of the Debian Free Software Guidelines]<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content Wikipedia Definition]<br />
* [http://www.freeroleplay.org/about Free RPG Community] (self-post)<br />
<br />
Edited & added fc-uk definitions --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob Myers]] 19:34, 2 May 2006 (CEST)</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:JaroslawLipszyc&diff=1536User:JaroslawLipszyc2006-05-03T00:49:36Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: </p>
<hr />
<div>My name is Jaroslaw Lipszyc, i live in Warszawa (Warsaw, Poland). I'm a journalist turned activist. [[Image:Jarek.jpg]] <br />
<br />
My email: jaroslaw.lipszyc@wolnepodreczniki.pl<br />
my jabber ID rekrutacja@jabber.org.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:JaroslawLipszyc&diff=1535User:JaroslawLipszyc2006-05-03T00:49:13Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: </p>
<hr />
<div>My name is Jaroslaw Lipszyc, i live in Warszawa (Warsaw, Poland). I'm a journalist turned activist. [[Image:Jarek.jpg]] My email: jaroslaw.lipszyc@wolnepodreczniki.pl<br />
my jabber ID rekrutacja@jabber.org.</div>JaroslawLipszychttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=User:JaroslawLipszyc&diff=1534User:JaroslawLipszyc2006-05-03T00:48:32Z<p>JaroslawLipszyc: </p>
<hr />
<div>My name is Jaroslaw Lipszyc, i live in Warszawa (Warsaw, Poland). I'm a journalist turned activist. [[Image:Jarek.jpg]] My email: jaroslaw.lipszyc@wolnepodreczniki.pl, my jabber ID rekrutacja@jabber.org.</div>JaroslawLipszyc