https://freedomdefined.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Mansour315&feedformat=atomDefinition of Free Cultural Works - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T14:41:59ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.38.4https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Permissible_restrictions&diff=4572Talk:Permissible restrictions2008-06-23T05:05:50Z<p>Mansour315: Talk:Permissible restrictions moved to Talk:Mansour315.blogfa.com</p>
<hr />
<div>== Small bug ==<br />
<br />
There is a bug here. One of the sentences says ''"The license may include clauses that strive to further ensure that the work is a free work, notably by enforcing some of the conditions specified in the paragraphs below"'', but the meaning of "the paragraphs below" has been lost when this part of this definition was given its own page.<br />
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:37, 18 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== question ==<br />
A question on "Permissible restrictions": if a photo would have a restriction that the ''location'' where it was taken has to be mentioned, would that constitute an unpermissible restriction? Example: "Mention ''Taken at London zoo'' on publication". [[User:TeunSpaans|TeunSpaans]] 15:34, 27 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Our Definition? ==<br />
<br />
Why are '''WE''' so possessive of this definition, if its supposed to be about freedom?<br />
Its better to say '''this''' or '''the''' definintion.<br />
<br />
Also, is this page part of the definition? It's odd that such a crucial part is on a separate page,<br />
and the part on Versioning, which is not strictly speaking part of the definition, is on the definition's page!<br />
<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 13:18, 19 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Where do you read this? [[User:TeunSpaans|TeunSpaans]] 07:04, 7 July 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::First line ''There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede the essential freedom in our definition.''<br />
::This would be better phrased as: ''There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that do not impede the essential freedoms prescribed by this definition, and, hence, are compatible with it.''<br />
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 13:57, 9 July 2007 (CEST)</div>Mansour315https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Permissible_restrictions&diff=4570Permissible restrictions2008-06-23T05:05:50Z<p>Mansour315: Permissible restrictions moved to Mansour315.blogfa.com</p>
<hr />
<div>There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede the essential freedom in our [[definition]]. These restrictions are described below.<br />
<br />
Apart from these allowed restrictions, the license ''must not'' include clauses that limit essential freedoms. Especially, ''it must not specify any usage restrictions'' (such as prohibiting commercial use of the work, restricting use depending on political context, etc.).<br />
<br />
==== Attribution of authors ====<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
==== Transmission of freedoms ====<br />
<br />
The license may include a clause, often called ''copyleft'' or ''share-alike'', which ensures that derivative works themselves remain free works. To this effect, it can for example require that all derivative works are made available under the same free license as the original.<br />
<br />
==== Protection of freedoms ====<br />
<br />
The license may include clauses that strive to further ensure that the work is a free work: for example, access to ''source code'', or prohibition of ''technical measures'' restricting essential freedoms.</div>Mansour315