https://freedomdefined.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=MaySoMusician&feedformat=atom
Definition of Free Cultural Works - User contributions [en]
2024-03-28T16:48:21Z
User contributions
MediaWiki 1.38.4
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=23731
Talk:Definition
2020-04-22T15:25:16Z
<p>MaySoMusician: /* Meaning of “We discourage you to ...” */ add sign to previous edit</p>
<hr />
<div>== What about the applicable law? ==<br />
<br />
If a license has a clause about the applicable law, is the license free?<br />
In my opinion, this clause is a problem because only the people that know a certain law can understand license's implied sides.<br />
<br />
: I think CC are working on licenses covered by Berne/WIPO law only. But a license needs a jurisdiction to avoid confusion or argument over terms and meaning, so in this case having a jurisdiction may protect freedom. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob<br />
<br />
: The license should not declare itself subject to applicable law (which differs widely and is a moving target dictated to governments by vested interests), otherwise it becomes effectively meaningless and impotent. It should grant its freedoms independently of applicable law. Then if some applicable law tries to restrict it, the finger of blame falls on those who have made the restrictive law, and not on the license. The phrase "subject to applicable law" effectively says "This license offers only those freedoms which those in power wish to legally allow you", and that is not at all in the spirit of the Definition. Let applicable law commit its own crimes against openness --- don't do it for them. [[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 22:24, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== First Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
I had some issues with the definition of free content here. Firstly, the document attempts to define "free content" as so many have done in the past, yet there is no clear definition of what is and isn't free content in the "free content movement" you discuss. It concerns me that a definition is being created in isolation from the wider community without proper discussion.<br />
<br />
I see the definition here models itself on the free software definition, but misses several important and fundamental aspects:<br />
<br />
How does the definition handle digital works (such as images, documents, etc) versus non-digitual works (such as hard-copy books, paintings, sculptures, etc)?<br />
<br />
How should digital works be treated? A digital work, such as a wordprocessor document, can be viewed in two ways: firstly, as a work in and of itself, i.e. content, but also as a piece of software itself that can display a final work. Should you only have the freedom to study a work (content), or should you also have the freedom to study how a work was created (software)?<br />
<br />
The definition talks about the freedom to make and release (distribute?) modifications but it doesn't say anything about source copies of work. I can think of several examples where the freedom to make modifications can be provided, but without a source copy of a work (i.e. in the format preferred for making modifications) making modifications could be prohibitive:<br />
<br />
* Protected PDF - sure, decrypting such a PDF is possible but its a) tricky to export a PDF to a format that can be modified with all the information intact (images, tables, etc), and b) it may be illegal to decrypt protected PDFs in certain juristictions (DMCA?)<br />
* Text content as image files - a user could allow users the freedom to modify his written works but only distribute them in image format. It is difficult for downstream users to then extract the text content<br />
<br />
You also talk about "free content licenses" where you should really be talking about free content works: a license enables a free content work, but<br />
<br />
Free experession is not the same as free content: you can have the right to free expresssion without having free content, and free content does not guarantee free expression.<br />
<br />
I hope this is helpful. --[[User:Rgladwell|Rgladwell]] 20:25, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for your comments. If you don't mind, I will move them to [[Talk:Definition/Unstable]] and respond there, just to have all comments in one place. First thoughts: You raise a very good point. Is it possible for something to be free content without the "source code" (or something equivalent) being available? Under the current definition, it is. Perhaps we need to find a wording that requires source availabiliy where such sources are essential to modifying the work. More later,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:42, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I've dispatched some of the comments into their own sections in Definition/Unstable. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:16, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Is there somewhere I can sign? -rhY-<br />
<br />
::In terms of source requirements, should it be more along the lines of source must be supplied where it existed in the making of the derivative and in the case of simple copies, if source was available for the original?<br />
<br />
Wow ... you even frame/structure Talk?! ... meh. Anyhow, ''nota'': you have Definition as your default index (wrong ... on basic principle, wrong ... you program? think trampolene) but Definition links to the rest of the site very very poorly. --BenTrem 68.148.26.220 01:07, 25 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== versioning ==<br />
License 333 and version 0.66 -- it is a sign! Excellent.<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Open Knowledge Definition ==<br />
<br />
Last september/october the [http://www.okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation] 'ported' the Open Source Definiton to produce the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition] ([http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html full text]).<br />
<br />
This came out of various discussions with people working on open geodata, open access, and open databases of scientific data. As I wrote then:<br />
<br />
"The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) provides an answer to the question: what is open knowledge? It puts forward, in a simple and clear manner, principles that define open knowledge and which open knowledge licenses must satisfy.<br />
<br />
The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access' journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential blurring of what is open and what is not.<br />
<br />
In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition, by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in achieving these ends."<br />
<br />
I therefore think this new initiative is a big step forward at a time, when at least to judge from my experience of debates about the CC license at Free Culture UK, there is no clear consensus about terms such as 'Free Content' (and therefore no consensus about the norms of the community).<br />
<br />
Given the common interest in these issues I'd very much like to get further involved in the FCED -- and parhaps also look at a way to merge the OKD and the FCED.<br />
<br />
--RufusPollock<br />
<br />
== My take ==<br />
<br />
:''"Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other works do not benefit from artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely."''<br />
<br />
I think this needs some revising. Production and quality do not benefit from artificial scarcity- individual works may very much so benefit. The last sentence needs some amending- Free content is not just used Freely, but ''more''. An important distinction to my mind.<br />
<br />
:#''the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression''<br />
:#''the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies ''<br />
<br />
This freedom isn't very clear. Does this involve not charging, or are "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fees acceptable?<br />
<br />
::My take on this question: those fees are not acceptable as normally understood. But it does not involve not charging either. For instance, in Free Software, you can charge whatever you can manage when someone obtains a copy from you. That you cannot do is make them pay you a fee when they then make copies of that copy for themselves.<br />
<br />
:''"Any original work of authorship is copyrighted. Under copyright law, authors are considered God-like "creators" and are given legal powers they can use against those who duplicate "their" content in altered or unaltered form."''<br />
<br />
Personally, I'd like a bit of a mention of the artificiality of copyright. That first line certainly makes it sound like copyright is a God-given natural right. <br />
<br />
More generally, the attribution section strikes me as troublesome. What happens if I take an article, on Fujiwara no Teika, say, which is a stub, and work like the dickens on it, until it is orders of magnitude larger, such that there is not so much as a single word in common with the original article? Should the first person still be credited as the original author? --maru ([[User:129.21.121.235|129.21.121.235]] 06:47, 6 May 2006 (CEST))<br />
<br />
== Adelphi ==<br />
<br />
Please also consult the [http://www.adelphicharter.org/ Adelphi charter].<br />
<br />
And regarding Public domain there is also the concept of "gemeinfrei"/common free in droit' auteur regulation. <br />
i.e. public property vs. free to use<br />
<br />
==The freedom to use and perform the work==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see the word "display" added to this since perform covers music and plays while display would cover films and pictures.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:46, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Since we speak of ''any use, private or public'', and all related rights, this is covered, but I agree that we can & should explicitly enumerate it in the next version.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Discussion list ==<br />
<br />
Is it possible to host the discussion list elsewhere than Google Groups? Not everyone wants to centralize their activity in a Google account. Not to mention that plain-jane Mailman archives are so much more usable than Google's system. Thanks. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:44, 16 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:I can host a mailman list for this on Wikia if there's no objection to that. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 14:18, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks for the offer - but I'd prefer to host the list with Mako. He's already offered to set up a list for us. As a private company in the wiki space which, I hope, will one day adopt the definition, I don't want Wikia to be seen as in any way influencing its content (same reason I wouldn't host the list with Wikimedia).--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks, anything resembling a normal mailing-list with public archives will be ok. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:31, 18 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Metaphor suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to thank the developers of this definition for clearly distinguishing between works that are truly free, and those that are only semi-free. One thing the concept lacks, though, is a simple metaphor as in "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech", that can be used to illustrate the basic distinction of this paradigm in a non-technical way. Not sure if such a thing belongs in an official definition, but I think it's something we should have around. I think I might have come up with something helpful, which is explained in the passage below:<br />
<br />
''Many licenses are called "free", but they are free in different ways. One has to ask, is a work "free to pamphlet" or "free to marionette"? A "free to pamphlet" work may be free to hand out copies (while rewriting or sale is restricted), but a "free to marionette" work is free to adapt into a marionette show, and to sell tickets at the door to rent the theatre and feed the hungry puppetteers.''--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 00:03, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: I think that is a nice metaphor for an essay. I would encourage you to draft an essay here -- I hope that, like the GNU site, freedomdefined.org will eventually be a solid collection of philosophical material.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:13, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I've written something at [[Free to marionette]]. Not sure where it goes in the structure, though.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 09:29, 24 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I've collected that and some other material I found here at [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]. There didn't seem to be any established place for such material till now, so I just went ahead and created one.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 08:01, 10 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Source data ==<br />
<br />
I think the source data section will still need some work to deal with cases where such data is simply not obtainable; IMHO that should not make the work non-free.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:11, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think this is a very tricky part. The source vs. binary duality is very different in the case of a creative work. If I took a photo of a flower would the source data be the flower itself, the raw format of the photo, or would the jpg be enough? If I released a png after adjusting the white balance, would I still have to release the raw format for a work to be free and be excused only if I happen to 'accidentally' destroy the raw data? I think that as long as a work is editable the source data is irrelevant. In the case of software, not releasing source places a technical impediment to modifying the work. In the case of a 3D scene this might also be the case, but in the case of an image it is clearly not. In the case of an audio file, or a film, would the author have to release the off cuts? I would not think so. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 16:07, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think is this fine to distinguish between works where there are no "source data" and where there is. A not yet fleshed-out thought is that anything that can be modified non-destructively should be available for distribution in the preferred form for modification. [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:28, 27 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
=== Adding a "... to the same extent as the author" ===<br />
I think I very much agree with [[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]]. I'm wondering whether actually the extent of any of the four freedoms is not quite clear. And all points in the section "Protection of Freedoms" are only tackling specific examples where the missing extent of these four freedoms could be problematic. Would it be possible to find a more general criteria which covers everything in the "Protection of Freedoms" section? I first thought about maybe changing for instance the first sentence in the summary of Definition/Unstable to:<br />
<br />
''Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can Use, Study, Copy, Change and Improve'' '''''to the same extent as the author'''''.<br />
<br />
So if the author can for instance use and study it at any time, then the author would not be allowed to place any additional restrictions. And any tools and raw data that make it easier for the author to modify the work would have to be available to anyone else too. An author would also not be allowed for instance to publish a work for instance under the mpeg4 format, as the author can for instance use or copy it at any time, but not anyone else could due to the license fees under certain other conditions. I'm not quite sure whether this addition might actually mark too many works, works which are actually non-"free", as a Free Cultural Work for one thing. And for another whether it'd be problematic that in certain cases it might not be easily provable whether the author is using additional data / tools to modify the work: For instance someone publishes a text under a CC-BY license within a pdf document from which anyone can easily copy and then modify the text. However, if the author has additional source data, for instance LaTex files, which allows the author to change certain content easier, then it'd probably be quite difficult to prove whether the author has and uses such LaTex source code. --[[User:T X|T X]] 12:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, now found a good example for my feeling, "I'm not quite sure whether this addition might actually mark too many works [as Free Cultural Works]": If the author's work is a derivative of a non Free Cultural Work, then suddenly the new work could become a Free Cultural Work. For instance the original work only allowed the usage of the work while making a headstand on a 1.23m high table. Then suddenly the derivative work inheriting this requirement would be marked as a Free Cultural Work. This could be fixed with the addition of a requirement that a derivative work would only be a Free Cultural Work if the original work was a Free Cultural Work too. --[[User:T X|T X]] 13:02, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
:: Grr, and just found another example why a "to the same extent as the author" won't quite work: For any license the author is usually allowed to distribute his/her own work under another, additional license later. For instance although a software is licensed under GPL, the author can additionally allow explicit usage under non-GPL terms to certain people or parties. Therefore a GPL work would not be considered a "Free Cultural Work" under my modified version... --[[User:T X|T X]] 04:51, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well anyways, maybe someone else gets my point and intent behind that addition and can come up with a better modification.<br />
<br />
== Copyleft suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to see a [[discussion of copyleft]] and what it needs to have to promote / protect a pool of Free Works.<br />
<br />
==Moral rights==<br />
<br />
There are some moral rights (''droit d'auteur'' not ''copyright'') that I have as an author and due to legal restriction I can't waive them. Does this make my work unfree? This page or [[Permissible restrictions]] does not address this issue.<br />
<br />
PS. You may call me old fashioned, but I don't think sentences like these give a mature and intelligent impression: "They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how 'their content' can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies." [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Samulili Samulili from Wikimedia projects]<br />
:I agree, the hostility is unnecessary and immature. [[User:130.58.68.159|130.58.68.159]] 22:47, 1 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:In my opinion, moral rights do not make your own work un-free, because they don't forbid other people to e.g. make modifications, they allow you to oppose some modifications on a case by case basis. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:21, 6 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Commercial Restrictions==<br />
<br />
What about some restrictions on the commercial distribution of a work? That is, a free culture work can be copied and those copies can be shared but with some restrictions on selling those copies when permission is not granted.<br />
<br />
:That isn't free content. Commercial Restrictions are explicitly not [[permissible restrictions]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 18:20, 3 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== In the summary... ==<br />
<br />
considered "free." --> considered "free".--[[User:Alnokta|Alnokta]] 20:47, 9 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== "god-like creators"? ==<br />
<br />
From the definition: "In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used."<br />
<br />
Is this even true? The purpose of Western copyright law is not meant to prop authors upon some pedestal to be worshiped, but to provide direct incentives for them to publish in the first place. Thus society benefits from the all-rights-reserved work, even if to a lesser extent than if work was freely licensed. I recall at least one US Supreme Court case finding that the primary purpose of copyright/patents is to provide for the benefit of society, and secondly to reward the author if he/she so chooses. Congress has made policy decisions to exempt works of federal employees from copyright, provide for "fair usage", and set (generous) copyright duration limits.<br />
<br />
My incentive to publish most of my work under free licenses is to promote a progressive international society. I expect that the Congress that passed the original version of copyright law shared the same values, as they have created the foundation which makes our work possible. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] (Who is not a lawyer.) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:True, but one has to appreciate the significant difference between original intentions and truth on the ground. I believe that the '''Original''' intentions of the people who first came up with the idea of copyright where not to different from ours, when taken in the context of the period. Yet, I think that legislative development is an evolutionary process, and evolutionary process exist in a state of equilibrium which can become unstable, at which point a fork (not dissimilar to a source code fork) tends to occur. <br />
:I think that in the case of Creative Works this fork has occurred (with the emergence of the internet as the critical factor driving the imbalance) with the "Freedom Culture" and the "IP protectionist Culture" as its two branches, both relying on the same resource, namely "Copyright laws" to archive their goals. Therefore, it is very important to make it absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture", by stating the state of affairs as they are today, not based n original intentions. On the other hand a '''Definition''' ought not to rely on emotionally charged statements to provide its information. I think that statement needs to be changed not because of what it tries to convey, but because of how it does it ... because at the end of the day the medium ''is'' the message. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:27, 13 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::By "truth on the ground," do you mean to say that aggressive copyright compliance has historically increased? The idea is plausible, but I am interested in seeing direct evidence of such a claim.<br />
<br />
::I agree that making "absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture"" is terribly important. I also posit that we should respect both and acknowledge that "free" is not always appropriate. The author needs to make that choice, a choice partially informed by freedomdefined.org. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 16:04, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::By the "truth on the ground" I mean the actual legislation and regulations that are in effect today that are supposed to implement that original intention, as well as case law, actual enforcement, the current context particularly asyncronisity with the digital media, adequacy in view of globalisation etc ... and current public perception of those intentions <br />
<br />
:::So, in short, I think we are agreeing. Where I do tend to differ slightly is on the appropriatness of freedom. I think that while in the current situation ""free" is not always appropriate", this in not necessary to the human condition, but rather and incidental effect of history. On the other hand a definition like this needs to address the here and now, and not some potential state-of-affairs where humanity enjoys universal intellectual freedom. But, again, we mostly agree see [[Talk:FAQ#What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos?|here]] for e.g. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 18:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::::Yes. I should add that I am one to enjoy history :-) I'll catch you around, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Why the sneering tone towards authorship anyway? Free Content isn't about limiting author's rights, it's about convincing people that it's better for authors to share, not that they're misguided in wanting some control at all. It's really all about the author's control over the work, because without it an author couldn't say "you must follow the GPL" any more than he could say 'no copying.' [[User:130.58.194.111|130.58.194.111]] 05:08, 22 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Photos should not be modified ==<br />
<br />
There are legal restrictions on the use and modification of photos, especially if they show living people. Personality rights in many countries do not allow to use photos in a way that could be regarded as libel. Photos of buildings or industrial products do not include the right to reproduce them. So the definition of free photos should be less permissive than the current definition and should not include the right of unlimited changes. --[[User:84.137.109.177|84.137.109.177]] 21:28, 19 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Does this need to be in the definition? Surely, all free cultural works are subject to other laws. Free software programs that capture photos in such a way that is governed by personality rights would be affected by those laws, but that doesn't make the software non-free or require the free software defintion, or a license for that matter, to include a clause about personality rights. If the definition, or a license, were to include clauses about every other possible law, there would be no point. What about child pornography, for example?<br />
: Good point, but I don't think it ought to be in the definition. --[[User:Balleyne|Balleyne]] 00:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trademarks? ==<br />
<br />
There is no mention of trademark restrictions in this article. Does the section '''No other restrictions or limitations''' also include trademark restrictions? To give an example, the [[w:Empire State Building]] is protected by trademark restrictions, so it is not "free of limitations". Is a photo of it -- a photo that was released by the photographer under a free license -- to be considered "free" according to the definition? / [[commons:User:Fred J]] 17:55, 29 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:This is an excellent question. The best example I can think of is Linux, which is obviously freely-licensed and yet there was a huge controversy and court case surrounding the trademark issue. See [[w:Linux|Copyright, licensing and the Linux trademark]] and [http://news.com.com/Torvalds+weighs+in+on+Linux+trademark+row/2100-7344_3-5841222.html]. Usually it's not a problem, but the trademark issue can make things complicated. Wikipedia, which is GFDl of course, uses trademarks all the time, and has a disclaimer about it: [[w:Wikipedia:General_disclaimer]]. [[w:User:Nadav1]] 16:06, 31 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::See also [[:m:User talk:Eloquence#Licensing policy: request for clarification]], where I had asked Erik Möller for a clarification regarding that point. The issue goes beyond trademarks. Photographs of people, for instance, cannot be used in advertising without the subject's express consent in many countries, AFAIK (personality rights). What about design protection? And so on... [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 11:15, 1 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Child Pornography is absolutely illegal in all jurisdictions.If the subject being photographed is not of legal age to consent to their photo\\and the legal guardian is not looking out for the minors best interest. Once the child reaches the legal age of consent, in the juris of the minors residence, the minor will be able to give "Free Will" consent.<br />
<br />
== Wiki content license ==<br />
<br />
This is terrible, you selected some license, which is still in heavy 'development' to license the content and didn't even say '2.5 or later'. Please! Use instead something like the gnu project does with "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." at the end of each page. Who can actually decide such a change in this wiki?!? --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: What substantial problem do you see with CC-BY 2.5? I agree that we should add the "any later version" clause, though technically that's problematic at this point.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 11:09, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Selecting ONE license of many for this definition of content freedom marks this one license special. Why CCby2.5? Why not FAL (LAL) 1.2? Why not GFDL? Why not GPL? If there should be a license for the definition's content at all, it should be every single of the accepted 'free content' licenses (are the ones on the licenses page valid free content licenses?) or something extremely simple and permissive as what the GNU project uses for it's web text content. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 20:33, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::PS: A terrible solution would be something like "every change made starting with 04. Dec 2007 is licensed under all of the following licenses and any of their later versions"<br />
<br />
Doesn't CC-BY 2.5 itself say that it can be relicensed under any later version (and any national version)?<br />
<br />
Allowing reuse of content under any free cultural work license would be certainly wiser, though. It's a bit strange that free cultural works are not permitted to include the definition of free cultural works (unless they use cc-by license, and only that). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 22:53, 23 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Why can't they? The cc-by license isn't a "share alike" license. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: The cc-by still has a freaking load of text in it and this is a problem. The free software definition is licensed under "Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." that's ''it''. overkill is the right word. read [http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/texinfo/Verbatim-Copying-License.html#Verbatim-Copying-License this]. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: That’s not a free license. There is no permission to change the article. -- [[User:Sloyment|Sloyment]] ([[User talk:Sloyment|talk]]) 21:39, 17 July 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Existing exemptions ==<br />
<br />
''Free Culture Licenses do not take rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.''<br />
<br />
What exactly does this section intend to state? In the strict sense, a license can never limit an exemption (thats why it is called an exemption). If it's meant in a more general sense, saying that FC licenses are not intended to limit your rights, thats not quite true: they do limit your right to relicense derivative works.<br />
<br />
For example, some countries have a concept called panorama freedom: photos made of copyrighted buildings and statues do not need permission from the copyright owner. Thus if somebody takes a picture of a statue, he can treat it as if it were fully his own work: sell it for money, grant limited distribution rights etc. If the statue was under a free "viral" license, that license would explicitly forbid this (the photo being a derivative work). Thus free licenses ''can'' take away rights (not freedoms though; actually they take away your right to reduce the freedom of others to use your work). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 01:35, 24 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
==An Objective Definition of Free?==<br />
<br />
I've written two books about copyright, (http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/index.htm) "Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP Law" and (http://www.greglondon.com/libre/index.htm) Libre Labyrinth". Both are licensed CC-BY. "Bounty Hunters" is more geared towards understanding how to find copyright laws that are fair for All Rights Reserved applications and how Free/Libre/Open projects fit into that context. "Libre Labyrinth" focuses on objectively describing and comparing different Free/Libre/Open licenses.<br />
<br />
The GNU-GPL is graphed out on pages 40 and 41 of "Libre Labyrinth". The main point is that all the "rooms" (all the areas that could be monopolized through some IP law) are open to one another. All the "doors" have been taken off the hinges (it's a bit of an odd metaphor for explaing Venn Diagrams that include allowed state transistions, but it's explained in the beginning of the book, and it seems to work), so there is no one-way trap-doors that allow someone to monopolize the work.<br />
<br />
It would seem that this would qualify as an objectively measurable definition of "Free". I thought you might find this useful, but didn't want to put my own works into your wiki. Conflict of interest, and all that. If this is useful, someone can put it in your main page. If it's not, then feel free to leave it out.<br />
<br />
[[User:GregLondon|GregLondon]] 00:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: Upload not functional ==<br />
<br />
Make the uploaded files directory writable please, I cannot upload files. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:44, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Save It ==<br />
<br />
Can we save it to a music CD<br />
<br />
==Box at top==<br />
Should be (+ "a" or + "the" as the 3rd word):<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is a stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}} [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] 23:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:"the" added, thank you! [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 13:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: favicon ==<br />
<br />
Please add the logo as a favicon, it's hard to find this site between lots of tabs... --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 17:01, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Mako]] has added this. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 20:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It doesn't seem to be working any more. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It's back now [http://freedomdefined.org/favicon.ico] but favicons can take a while to show up so you might not see it straight away. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 15:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Preamble for 1.1 ==<br />
<br />
I think in the 1.1 version we should try to rewrite the preamble in response to some of the feedback we've received. In particular:<br />
<br />
: In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies. <br />
<br />
This seems unnecessarily polemical and polarizing. We want to invite even those people to participate who utilize traditional copyright protections for some of their works. My preference would be to replace this entire paragraph with a more positive one about the power of sharing and collaboration. I don't think we need to take a pro-copyright stance in this definition, but I also don't think we need or want to take an anti-copyright one. Thoughts?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 22:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes Eric, [http://groups.google.co.nz/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/1fbba7c35655360e this is currently being discussed on the Wikieducator list] at the moment, but you are right to try and bring it here. My feeling is that the paragraph is so poor that it should be deleted immediately. Then you/we could build something up if it leaves a void. Personally I think the document is better without it all together, and is not diminished if nothing is there for a time. [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 15:07 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
:: I am an advocate of the free cultural works definition and have recently been directed to issues in the preamble of the definition in the WikiEducator discussion forums. The WikiEducator community have adopted the free cultural works definition and I think that the paragraph referred to below does not serve the interests of the definition. I propose that the following paragraph be deleted from the definition: "''In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.''" Having been on the receiving end of the FUD for many years, I appreciate and understand the sentiments expressed in the paragraph. Perhaps we should create an addendum containing further reading and key resources to articulate these concerns, but I don't think they should be included in the main body of the definition. <br />
--[[User:Mackiwg|Mackiwg]] 23:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus and take action on that paragraph...? [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 17:57 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
I've made an [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=prev&oldid=5059 edit] to [[Definition/Unstable]] per the above; feel free to revise further. If I don't hear anything back within the next week, I'm just going to do a quick 1.1 update myself.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Yes, neutral is better. I think this is the only part that can be considered biased, the rest looks fine. ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 15:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Updated.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:02, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Have further tweaked the Unstable version where I thought there were still unnecessary words, or confusing sentences. Hope to see them in the Definition at some stage. --[[User:Leighblackall|Leighblackall]] 21:35, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks so much for removing this. Now it's actually a neutral definition instead of advocacy. Maybe there's hope for the project after all. :) [[wikipedia:User:Omegatron/Non-free_content|Omegatron]] 14:27, 11 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Photos and their use ==<br />
<br />
As a photographer I am concerned with how my work is used. Now having said that I do fully understand the concept of creative commons and free cultural work and other "licenses" however the biggest issue I see is that "one size does not fit all". For example Creative Commons uses music/audio terms such as "remix" and in 30 years do taking photographs I have never once been asked if someone could "remix" my image. GFDL is meant for text - so using it for an image and saying "No Back cover text" does not fully apply.<br />
<br />
That being said the FCW license might work great for images with a few re-wording or clarifications. And these are suggestions, rough ones at that.<br />
<br />
''The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.''<br />
<br />
For images the word "perform" might be changed to "display". However for an image I feel "exceptions" should be considered. For example - a photographer takes an image in New Orleans lower ninth ward of an Afro-American who was killed during katrina and they release it "freely". Based upon the FCW "there must be no exception" so a user could re-purpose that image for use in a pro-Nazi poster. A CCL does have "fine print" that state the licensee can ''not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation'' which I think, in relations to images, is a good thing. Perhaps the FCW could change the wording of "There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations" to something along the lines of "There can be exceptions regarding, for example, exploitation or racist use" <br />
<br />
''The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".''<br />
<br />
I do not see any issues with this part as it would relate to images.<br />
<br />
''The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied''<br />
<br />
The concept is fine but it's execution in relation to an image might not fully work. Redistribution is fine. Adding to a collection is fine. Anyone can copy it is fine. Sales however is where you run into issues. Look at the "exception" issue(s) for an idea. If there were to be no restrictions on use there would be no doubt an image could be used in a manner it was never intended to be used and be used in that manner to make money. Again - perhaps in regards to images there could be a choice of the photographer to disallow use for hate "profit" (ie - use the image in pro-hate merchandise or literature). Likewise a religious group could take an image of someone dying and place it on a t-shirt saying "Aids Kills" and sell it. I fully believe that a photographer should be allowed some choice in how their image is used. <br />
<br />
''The freedom to distribute derivative works''<br />
<br />
Sort of a given with any of these "free" licenses. But perhaps in conjunction with any sort of image options as defined above this would slightly change what the "derivative work" could be used for. <br />
<br />
Probably most of this could be added in the [[Permissible restrictions]] section too. It would be good to hear other photographers input on this and have a discussion on ways to make this work. [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] 21:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Time scope and revocability of licenses, etc... ==<br />
<br />
The present definition is unclear concerning <br />
<br />
* Licenses allowing free use for a definite time scope (1 year only, 1 week only)<br />
<br />
* Licenses with a "for the time being", or "until revoked" clause.<br />
<br />
The only point where the present definition clearly rejects revocability is in connection with patents : ''should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and <u>irrevocable</u> royalty-free grant...'' but there is no such condition in connection with copyright.<br />
<br />
I suggest that future versions of the definition should address this concern. <br />
<br />
I have also questions concerning the space scope : what about non-worldwide, free-in-only-a-few-countries licenses ?<br />
<br />
[[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 04:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I made a small edit in the unstable version, to reflect this concern : ([http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=prev&oldid=5358 diff]). [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 04:48, 20 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Compare with the following statement in the definition of « free software » : ''In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.'' [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The Free Software Definition, by the Free Software Foundation]. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 20:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:If I understand the intent correctly, it seems to me that it would help to express the "without limitation" principle by explicitly stating that rights granted by any free license should be both '''''perpetual''''' (non-expiring) and '''''non-revocable'''''. Do all of the current stock licenses explicitly express this? [[User:Danorton|Danorton]] 17:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I agree that this is a very important clarification to make in the definition. It seems that wording to this effect has been added and removed from various versions of the official definition over the years (and is absent in the current version). I'm not sure why its inclusion has been inconsistent, as it seems to have been part of the unstable version consistently since at least 2006. Perhaps Erik could respond to this, as he is the person who has actually implemented most of the version updates. Is there a reason we don't want to define free licenses as unrevokable or is it just that most people consider this to be obvious? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: I don't recall that this has been added before - perhaps I missed it? If you can find it, could you provide a diff? I don't have any problem with adding this to the definition, but I'll post the issue to our mailing list so other people are aware of it as well.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::The very specific language that has been in the unstable version for a while has never been in this version, as far as I know, but the statement that the freedoms "should be available to anyone, anywhere, '''anytime'''" was in both version 0.9 and version 1.0, but was stripped out of version 1.1. This led to a discussion about whether that phrase should be included in the commons licensing policy or not. Personally, I don't think the sentence itself is that important, but the definition should specifically address the issue of revokability somewhere. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Agree that "perpetual" and "irrevocable" should be added. Popular free licenses already do so, and the fear that the author can revoke the work any time and thereby disrupt your financial plans can be a very large barrier to reuse for e.g. a book publisher. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: '''"Perpetual and non-revocable"''' are core tenets of open licensing, and need to be stated explicitly. The can of worms which is created by revocable licensing would make this whole endeavor unworkable and open to massive ''a posteriori'' abuse. What's more, it would also create an atmosphere of uncertainty about the freedoms being granted, and potentially also tie up the community in courtrooms. This is why free software and CC licenses state it plainly, and OSHW needs to do likewise. [[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 22:46, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Permanent URLs ==<br />
<br />
This needs stable URLs fast. It is impossible to link to it from a legal document as long as the text can change at any time. [[Definition/1.0]] and [[Definition/1.1]] should contain unchanging texts, and so should [[Definition/1.0/de]] etc. And they should be referred from the header so readers realize [[Definition]] is not a stable text.<br />
<br />
(Also, could someone clean out the porn ads from the mailing list home page? Or at least remove the link to them from the site notice?) --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 04:00, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I don't know if this is what you need, but there is a "permanent link" in the toolbox, in the left margin. However, "The definition itself is not a license", so be careful not to use in a legal document as if it were a license. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 07:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The definition is inteded to be used in legal documents to define what kinds of licenses are acceptable. That's how the Wikimedia Foundation used it in their [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy licensing policy resolution], and IIRC this site was originally created as part of that resolution. And the link to this definition (which plays quite a fundamental role in the policy) now points to a different text than it did when the resolution was passed. Though it says explicitly 1.0, so the intention is clear there, but even if the reader does realise that he has been sent to the wrong page (whch does not exactly create an air of professionalism btw), he has no idea where to find the tight text. (Keep in mind that the intended target audience of this site goes much beyond the wiki world, so the reader is not neccessarily wiki-savvy.) When the wording of a document is less cautious and doesn't explicitly name the version, that could lead to even bigger problems. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 20:09, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Tgr, I got your point, you're right that separate versions should be uniquely accessed. This is an easy job to do, and you can help me if you please, as most of the pages are not protected. It is possible to find the precise version before the 1.0->1.1 update and copy it into a subpage, and then exchange links in order to have all readers informed. I will spend some time in the weekend... ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
: I am not able to help for the Korean translation only. I cannot recognize words "version" and "stable" in order to make a precise change in the wordings. For the latin and cyrillic languages, even for Greek, this was an easy job to do. ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 10:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== First sentence ==<br />
<br />
The first sentence of this article currently says:<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.''<br />
<br />
I propose that it be changed to:<br />
<br />
''This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely applied, studied, copied, modified, and/or distributed, by anyone, for any purpose.''<br />
<br />
I have just added "distributed", which appears in other parts of the article, but is strangely missing in the first sentence. In my opinion, "distributed" is important enough to merit inclusion in the first sentence. --[[User:Antonielly|Antonielly]] 18:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Box at top: link correction==<br />
<br />
I think the link to "Please help updating it ..." should go to [[Definition/Unstable]] and not to [[:Template:Definition-langs]]. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 17:45, 4 March 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. I changed the link. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 13:15, 10 March 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== New Translations ==<br />
<br />
Please add Croatian language translation to the page. BTW, is there a policy on red links? Could you perhaps fall back to sans /<LanguageCode> and show a template with a translated text message of why this has happened, and where to click to create a /<LanguageCode> page --[[User:Paxcoder|Paxcoder]] ([[User talk:Paxcoder|talk]]) 19:26, 4 June 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Croatian added, thanks for the translation.<br />
: I don’t understand the proposal – ''which'' language codes would we show? There is a link to [[Translations]]; maybe the page should be improved with better documentation on how to create a new translation, but that’s about it?<br />
: --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 07:54, 5 June 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Hey, thanks for adding it. What I meant was: For pages that do not exist in a certain language, redirect to the original page (English, thus sans the language code suffix), and display a message above the article explaining what happened. This template would be translated in each language, and would look something like this: "This is the original (English) version of the requested article, please contribute a [[<CurrentPage>/<LanguageCode>|<Language> Translation]]". --[[User:Paxcoder|Paxcoder]] ([[User talk:Paxcoder|talk]]) 12:39, 5 June 2013 (EDT) EDIT: --[[User:Paxcoder|Paxcoder]] ([[User talk:Paxcoder|talk]]) 12:46, 5 June 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Translations ==<br />
<br />
It would be wonderful if the wiki implements [[wikipedia:mw:Extension:Translate|Extension:Translate]]. It would be some work to be done to move existing translations to the new system but that is not that hard. It is much easier to track changes to the original page and update them in a translation this way (not to say that the translation itself becomes easier). --[[User:Base|Base]] ([[User talk:Base|talk]]) 23:49, 10 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That’s correct, but I’d say changes to the original page are very rare on this wiki, so it might not be worth it. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 08:53, 11 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Propose numbering of freedoms ==<br />
<br />
When I am talking about free software, I link people to the GNU.org philosophy page. The numbering of the four essential freedoms, 0 through 3, helps me refer to individual ones. However, when referring to a free cultural work or free culture generally, it feels confusing or almost off-topic to link to a page specifically about software. So I link to the Definition here, but I wish it was numbered; preferably the same scheme. This code:<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
<ol start="0"><br />
<li>Use</li><br />
<li>Hack</li><br />
<li>Share</li><br />
<li>Derive</li><br />
</ol><br />
</pre><br />
<br />
yields<br />
<br />
<ol start="0"><br />
<li>Use</li><br />
<li>Hack</li><br />
<li>Share</li><br />
<li>Derive</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
[[User:Arlo James Barnes|Arlo James Barnes]] ([[User talk:Arlo James Barnes|talk]]) 20:03, 19 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Meaning of “We discourage you to ...” ==<br />
<br />
While I'm translating into Japanese, I'm wondering which “We discourage you to use other terms” (in the ''Identifying Free Cultural Works'' section) means, “We don't recommend you to use other terms” or “We're not glad to use other terms.” Does anyone have any idea?<br />
<br />
The old 1.0 translation says “...あなたが他の語を使うのであれば、われわれは失望するでしょう。”, that would be literally interpreted as meaning “We would be disappointed in you, if you use other terms... --[[User:MaySoMusician|MaySoMusician]] ([[User talk:MaySoMusician|talk]]) 17:23, 21 April 2020 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I am not sure I understand the distinction you are making. I understand it to be “We don't recommend you to use other terms”, which is for me basically equal to “We would be disappointed in you, if you use other terms...” (only differing in tone, not in the basic meaning). I.e. the definition is asking the creators to mark the free content they made as “free content”, because if the authors were to use other terms (like “open access”), the potential consumers (other people, the public) might be confused about the meaning of those terms. For that reason, “we” (the community of Free Cultural Works) do not recommend you to use other terms. Hope that helps. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 09:31, 22 April 2020 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: In Japanese, “we would be disappointed” gives us an impression of them thinking with their hearts, while “we do not recommend” gives a sense of them thinking rationally.<br />
:: I'll change the translation so as to enable to convey the difinition more correctly. Thanks a lot!<br />
:: P.S. I totally forgot to sign my name --[[User:MaySoMusician|MaySoMusician]] ([[User talk:MaySoMusician|talk]]) 17:23, 22 April 2020 (CEST)</div>
MaySoMusician
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=23730
Talk:Definition
2020-04-22T15:23:58Z
<p>MaySoMusician: /* Meaning of “We discourage you to ...” */ reply</p>
<hr />
<div>== What about the applicable law? ==<br />
<br />
If a license has a clause about the applicable law, is the license free?<br />
In my opinion, this clause is a problem because only the people that know a certain law can understand license's implied sides.<br />
<br />
: I think CC are working on licenses covered by Berne/WIPO law only. But a license needs a jurisdiction to avoid confusion or argument over terms and meaning, so in this case having a jurisdiction may protect freedom. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob<br />
<br />
: The license should not declare itself subject to applicable law (which differs widely and is a moving target dictated to governments by vested interests), otherwise it becomes effectively meaningless and impotent. It should grant its freedoms independently of applicable law. Then if some applicable law tries to restrict it, the finger of blame falls on those who have made the restrictive law, and not on the license. The phrase "subject to applicable law" effectively says "This license offers only those freedoms which those in power wish to legally allow you", and that is not at all in the spirit of the Definition. Let applicable law commit its own crimes against openness --- don't do it for them. [[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 22:24, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== First Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
I had some issues with the definition of free content here. Firstly, the document attempts to define "free content" as so many have done in the past, yet there is no clear definition of what is and isn't free content in the "free content movement" you discuss. It concerns me that a definition is being created in isolation from the wider community without proper discussion.<br />
<br />
I see the definition here models itself on the free software definition, but misses several important and fundamental aspects:<br />
<br />
How does the definition handle digital works (such as images, documents, etc) versus non-digitual works (such as hard-copy books, paintings, sculptures, etc)?<br />
<br />
How should digital works be treated? A digital work, such as a wordprocessor document, can be viewed in two ways: firstly, as a work in and of itself, i.e. content, but also as a piece of software itself that can display a final work. Should you only have the freedom to study a work (content), or should you also have the freedom to study how a work was created (software)?<br />
<br />
The definition talks about the freedom to make and release (distribute?) modifications but it doesn't say anything about source copies of work. I can think of several examples where the freedom to make modifications can be provided, but without a source copy of a work (i.e. in the format preferred for making modifications) making modifications could be prohibitive:<br />
<br />
* Protected PDF - sure, decrypting such a PDF is possible but its a) tricky to export a PDF to a format that can be modified with all the information intact (images, tables, etc), and b) it may be illegal to decrypt protected PDFs in certain juristictions (DMCA?)<br />
* Text content as image files - a user could allow users the freedom to modify his written works but only distribute them in image format. It is difficult for downstream users to then extract the text content<br />
<br />
You also talk about "free content licenses" where you should really be talking about free content works: a license enables a free content work, but<br />
<br />
Free experession is not the same as free content: you can have the right to free expresssion without having free content, and free content does not guarantee free expression.<br />
<br />
I hope this is helpful. --[[User:Rgladwell|Rgladwell]] 20:25, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for your comments. If you don't mind, I will move them to [[Talk:Definition/Unstable]] and respond there, just to have all comments in one place. First thoughts: You raise a very good point. Is it possible for something to be free content without the "source code" (or something equivalent) being available? Under the current definition, it is. Perhaps we need to find a wording that requires source availabiliy where such sources are essential to modifying the work. More later,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:42, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I've dispatched some of the comments into their own sections in Definition/Unstable. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:16, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Is there somewhere I can sign? -rhY-<br />
<br />
::In terms of source requirements, should it be more along the lines of source must be supplied where it existed in the making of the derivative and in the case of simple copies, if source was available for the original?<br />
<br />
Wow ... you even frame/structure Talk?! ... meh. Anyhow, ''nota'': you have Definition as your default index (wrong ... on basic principle, wrong ... you program? think trampolene) but Definition links to the rest of the site very very poorly. --BenTrem 68.148.26.220 01:07, 25 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== versioning ==<br />
License 333 and version 0.66 -- it is a sign! Excellent.<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Open Knowledge Definition ==<br />
<br />
Last september/october the [http://www.okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation] 'ported' the Open Source Definiton to produce the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition] ([http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html full text]).<br />
<br />
This came out of various discussions with people working on open geodata, open access, and open databases of scientific data. As I wrote then:<br />
<br />
"The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) provides an answer to the question: what is open knowledge? It puts forward, in a simple and clear manner, principles that define open knowledge and which open knowledge licenses must satisfy.<br />
<br />
The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access' journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential blurring of what is open and what is not.<br />
<br />
In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition, by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in achieving these ends."<br />
<br />
I therefore think this new initiative is a big step forward at a time, when at least to judge from my experience of debates about the CC license at Free Culture UK, there is no clear consensus about terms such as 'Free Content' (and therefore no consensus about the norms of the community).<br />
<br />
Given the common interest in these issues I'd very much like to get further involved in the FCED -- and parhaps also look at a way to merge the OKD and the FCED.<br />
<br />
--RufusPollock<br />
<br />
== My take ==<br />
<br />
:''"Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other works do not benefit from artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely."''<br />
<br />
I think this needs some revising. Production and quality do not benefit from artificial scarcity- individual works may very much so benefit. The last sentence needs some amending- Free content is not just used Freely, but ''more''. An important distinction to my mind.<br />
<br />
:#''the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression''<br />
:#''the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies ''<br />
<br />
This freedom isn't very clear. Does this involve not charging, or are "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fees acceptable?<br />
<br />
::My take on this question: those fees are not acceptable as normally understood. But it does not involve not charging either. For instance, in Free Software, you can charge whatever you can manage when someone obtains a copy from you. That you cannot do is make them pay you a fee when they then make copies of that copy for themselves.<br />
<br />
:''"Any original work of authorship is copyrighted. Under copyright law, authors are considered God-like "creators" and are given legal powers they can use against those who duplicate "their" content in altered or unaltered form."''<br />
<br />
Personally, I'd like a bit of a mention of the artificiality of copyright. That first line certainly makes it sound like copyright is a God-given natural right. <br />
<br />
More generally, the attribution section strikes me as troublesome. What happens if I take an article, on Fujiwara no Teika, say, which is a stub, and work like the dickens on it, until it is orders of magnitude larger, such that there is not so much as a single word in common with the original article? Should the first person still be credited as the original author? --maru ([[User:129.21.121.235|129.21.121.235]] 06:47, 6 May 2006 (CEST))<br />
<br />
== Adelphi ==<br />
<br />
Please also consult the [http://www.adelphicharter.org/ Adelphi charter].<br />
<br />
And regarding Public domain there is also the concept of "gemeinfrei"/common free in droit' auteur regulation. <br />
i.e. public property vs. free to use<br />
<br />
==The freedom to use and perform the work==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see the word "display" added to this since perform covers music and plays while display would cover films and pictures.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:46, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Since we speak of ''any use, private or public'', and all related rights, this is covered, but I agree that we can & should explicitly enumerate it in the next version.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Discussion list ==<br />
<br />
Is it possible to host the discussion list elsewhere than Google Groups? Not everyone wants to centralize their activity in a Google account. Not to mention that plain-jane Mailman archives are so much more usable than Google's system. Thanks. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:44, 16 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:I can host a mailman list for this on Wikia if there's no objection to that. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 14:18, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks for the offer - but I'd prefer to host the list with Mako. He's already offered to set up a list for us. As a private company in the wiki space which, I hope, will one day adopt the definition, I don't want Wikia to be seen as in any way influencing its content (same reason I wouldn't host the list with Wikimedia).--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks, anything resembling a normal mailing-list with public archives will be ok. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:31, 18 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Metaphor suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to thank the developers of this definition for clearly distinguishing between works that are truly free, and those that are only semi-free. One thing the concept lacks, though, is a simple metaphor as in "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech", that can be used to illustrate the basic distinction of this paradigm in a non-technical way. Not sure if such a thing belongs in an official definition, but I think it's something we should have around. I think I might have come up with something helpful, which is explained in the passage below:<br />
<br />
''Many licenses are called "free", but they are free in different ways. One has to ask, is a work "free to pamphlet" or "free to marionette"? A "free to pamphlet" work may be free to hand out copies (while rewriting or sale is restricted), but a "free to marionette" work is free to adapt into a marionette show, and to sell tickets at the door to rent the theatre and feed the hungry puppetteers.''--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 00:03, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: I think that is a nice metaphor for an essay. I would encourage you to draft an essay here -- I hope that, like the GNU site, freedomdefined.org will eventually be a solid collection of philosophical material.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:13, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I've written something at [[Free to marionette]]. Not sure where it goes in the structure, though.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 09:29, 24 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I've collected that and some other material I found here at [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]. There didn't seem to be any established place for such material till now, so I just went ahead and created one.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 08:01, 10 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Source data ==<br />
<br />
I think the source data section will still need some work to deal with cases where such data is simply not obtainable; IMHO that should not make the work non-free.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:11, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think this is a very tricky part. The source vs. binary duality is very different in the case of a creative work. If I took a photo of a flower would the source data be the flower itself, the raw format of the photo, or would the jpg be enough? If I released a png after adjusting the white balance, would I still have to release the raw format for a work to be free and be excused only if I happen to 'accidentally' destroy the raw data? I think that as long as a work is editable the source data is irrelevant. In the case of software, not releasing source places a technical impediment to modifying the work. In the case of a 3D scene this might also be the case, but in the case of an image it is clearly not. In the case of an audio file, or a film, would the author have to release the off cuts? I would not think so. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 16:07, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think is this fine to distinguish between works where there are no "source data" and where there is. A not yet fleshed-out thought is that anything that can be modified non-destructively should be available for distribution in the preferred form for modification. [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:28, 27 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
=== Adding a "... to the same extent as the author" ===<br />
I think I very much agree with [[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]]. I'm wondering whether actually the extent of any of the four freedoms is not quite clear. And all points in the section "Protection of Freedoms" are only tackling specific examples where the missing extent of these four freedoms could be problematic. Would it be possible to find a more general criteria which covers everything in the "Protection of Freedoms" section? I first thought about maybe changing for instance the first sentence in the summary of Definition/Unstable to:<br />
<br />
''Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can Use, Study, Copy, Change and Improve'' '''''to the same extent as the author'''''.<br />
<br />
So if the author can for instance use and study it at any time, then the author would not be allowed to place any additional restrictions. And any tools and raw data that make it easier for the author to modify the work would have to be available to anyone else too. An author would also not be allowed for instance to publish a work for instance under the mpeg4 format, as the author can for instance use or copy it at any time, but not anyone else could due to the license fees under certain other conditions. I'm not quite sure whether this addition might actually mark too many works, works which are actually non-"free", as a Free Cultural Work for one thing. And for another whether it'd be problematic that in certain cases it might not be easily provable whether the author is using additional data / tools to modify the work: For instance someone publishes a text under a CC-BY license within a pdf document from which anyone can easily copy and then modify the text. However, if the author has additional source data, for instance LaTex files, which allows the author to change certain content easier, then it'd probably be quite difficult to prove whether the author has and uses such LaTex source code. --[[User:T X|T X]] 12:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, now found a good example for my feeling, "I'm not quite sure whether this addition might actually mark too many works [as Free Cultural Works]": If the author's work is a derivative of a non Free Cultural Work, then suddenly the new work could become a Free Cultural Work. For instance the original work only allowed the usage of the work while making a headstand on a 1.23m high table. Then suddenly the derivative work inheriting this requirement would be marked as a Free Cultural Work. This could be fixed with the addition of a requirement that a derivative work would only be a Free Cultural Work if the original work was a Free Cultural Work too. --[[User:T X|T X]] 13:02, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
:: Grr, and just found another example why a "to the same extent as the author" won't quite work: For any license the author is usually allowed to distribute his/her own work under another, additional license later. For instance although a software is licensed under GPL, the author can additionally allow explicit usage under non-GPL terms to certain people or parties. Therefore a GPL work would not be considered a "Free Cultural Work" under my modified version... --[[User:T X|T X]] 04:51, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well anyways, maybe someone else gets my point and intent behind that addition and can come up with a better modification.<br />
<br />
== Copyleft suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to see a [[discussion of copyleft]] and what it needs to have to promote / protect a pool of Free Works.<br />
<br />
==Moral rights==<br />
<br />
There are some moral rights (''droit d'auteur'' not ''copyright'') that I have as an author and due to legal restriction I can't waive them. Does this make my work unfree? This page or [[Permissible restrictions]] does not address this issue.<br />
<br />
PS. You may call me old fashioned, but I don't think sentences like these give a mature and intelligent impression: "They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how 'their content' can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies." [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Samulili Samulili from Wikimedia projects]<br />
:I agree, the hostility is unnecessary and immature. [[User:130.58.68.159|130.58.68.159]] 22:47, 1 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:In my opinion, moral rights do not make your own work un-free, because they don't forbid other people to e.g. make modifications, they allow you to oppose some modifications on a case by case basis. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:21, 6 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Commercial Restrictions==<br />
<br />
What about some restrictions on the commercial distribution of a work? That is, a free culture work can be copied and those copies can be shared but with some restrictions on selling those copies when permission is not granted.<br />
<br />
:That isn't free content. Commercial Restrictions are explicitly not [[permissible restrictions]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 18:20, 3 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== In the summary... ==<br />
<br />
considered "free." --> considered "free".--[[User:Alnokta|Alnokta]] 20:47, 9 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== "god-like creators"? ==<br />
<br />
From the definition: "In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used."<br />
<br />
Is this even true? The purpose of Western copyright law is not meant to prop authors upon some pedestal to be worshiped, but to provide direct incentives for them to publish in the first place. Thus society benefits from the all-rights-reserved work, even if to a lesser extent than if work was freely licensed. I recall at least one US Supreme Court case finding that the primary purpose of copyright/patents is to provide for the benefit of society, and secondly to reward the author if he/she so chooses. Congress has made policy decisions to exempt works of federal employees from copyright, provide for "fair usage", and set (generous) copyright duration limits.<br />
<br />
My incentive to publish most of my work under free licenses is to promote a progressive international society. I expect that the Congress that passed the original version of copyright law shared the same values, as they have created the foundation which makes our work possible. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] (Who is not a lawyer.) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:True, but one has to appreciate the significant difference between original intentions and truth on the ground. I believe that the '''Original''' intentions of the people who first came up with the idea of copyright where not to different from ours, when taken in the context of the period. Yet, I think that legislative development is an evolutionary process, and evolutionary process exist in a state of equilibrium which can become unstable, at which point a fork (not dissimilar to a source code fork) tends to occur. <br />
:I think that in the case of Creative Works this fork has occurred (with the emergence of the internet as the critical factor driving the imbalance) with the "Freedom Culture" and the "IP protectionist Culture" as its two branches, both relying on the same resource, namely "Copyright laws" to archive their goals. Therefore, it is very important to make it absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture", by stating the state of affairs as they are today, not based n original intentions. On the other hand a '''Definition''' ought not to rely on emotionally charged statements to provide its information. I think that statement needs to be changed not because of what it tries to convey, but because of how it does it ... because at the end of the day the medium ''is'' the message. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:27, 13 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::By "truth on the ground," do you mean to say that aggressive copyright compliance has historically increased? The idea is plausible, but I am interested in seeing direct evidence of such a claim.<br />
<br />
::I agree that making "absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture"" is terribly important. I also posit that we should respect both and acknowledge that "free" is not always appropriate. The author needs to make that choice, a choice partially informed by freedomdefined.org. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 16:04, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::By the "truth on the ground" I mean the actual legislation and regulations that are in effect today that are supposed to implement that original intention, as well as case law, actual enforcement, the current context particularly asyncronisity with the digital media, adequacy in view of globalisation etc ... and current public perception of those intentions <br />
<br />
:::So, in short, I think we are agreeing. Where I do tend to differ slightly is on the appropriatness of freedom. I think that while in the current situation ""free" is not always appropriate", this in not necessary to the human condition, but rather and incidental effect of history. On the other hand a definition like this needs to address the here and now, and not some potential state-of-affairs where humanity enjoys universal intellectual freedom. But, again, we mostly agree see [[Talk:FAQ#What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos?|here]] for e.g. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 18:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::::Yes. I should add that I am one to enjoy history :-) I'll catch you around, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Why the sneering tone towards authorship anyway? Free Content isn't about limiting author's rights, it's about convincing people that it's better for authors to share, not that they're misguided in wanting some control at all. It's really all about the author's control over the work, because without it an author couldn't say "you must follow the GPL" any more than he could say 'no copying.' [[User:130.58.194.111|130.58.194.111]] 05:08, 22 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Photos should not be modified ==<br />
<br />
There are legal restrictions on the use and modification of photos, especially if they show living people. Personality rights in many countries do not allow to use photos in a way that could be regarded as libel. Photos of buildings or industrial products do not include the right to reproduce them. So the definition of free photos should be less permissive than the current definition and should not include the right of unlimited changes. --[[User:84.137.109.177|84.137.109.177]] 21:28, 19 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Does this need to be in the definition? Surely, all free cultural works are subject to other laws. Free software programs that capture photos in such a way that is governed by personality rights would be affected by those laws, but that doesn't make the software non-free or require the free software defintion, or a license for that matter, to include a clause about personality rights. If the definition, or a license, were to include clauses about every other possible law, there would be no point. What about child pornography, for example?<br />
: Good point, but I don't think it ought to be in the definition. --[[User:Balleyne|Balleyne]] 00:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trademarks? ==<br />
<br />
There is no mention of trademark restrictions in this article. Does the section '''No other restrictions or limitations''' also include trademark restrictions? To give an example, the [[w:Empire State Building]] is protected by trademark restrictions, so it is not "free of limitations". Is a photo of it -- a photo that was released by the photographer under a free license -- to be considered "free" according to the definition? / [[commons:User:Fred J]] 17:55, 29 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:This is an excellent question. The best example I can think of is Linux, which is obviously freely-licensed and yet there was a huge controversy and court case surrounding the trademark issue. See [[w:Linux|Copyright, licensing and the Linux trademark]] and [http://news.com.com/Torvalds+weighs+in+on+Linux+trademark+row/2100-7344_3-5841222.html]. Usually it's not a problem, but the trademark issue can make things complicated. Wikipedia, which is GFDl of course, uses trademarks all the time, and has a disclaimer about it: [[w:Wikipedia:General_disclaimer]]. [[w:User:Nadav1]] 16:06, 31 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::See also [[:m:User talk:Eloquence#Licensing policy: request for clarification]], where I had asked Erik Möller for a clarification regarding that point. The issue goes beyond trademarks. Photographs of people, for instance, cannot be used in advertising without the subject's express consent in many countries, AFAIK (personality rights). What about design protection? And so on... [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 11:15, 1 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Child Pornography is absolutely illegal in all jurisdictions.If the subject being photographed is not of legal age to consent to their photo\\and the legal guardian is not looking out for the minors best interest. Once the child reaches the legal age of consent, in the juris of the minors residence, the minor will be able to give "Free Will" consent.<br />
<br />
== Wiki content license ==<br />
<br />
This is terrible, you selected some license, which is still in heavy 'development' to license the content and didn't even say '2.5 or later'. Please! Use instead something like the gnu project does with "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." at the end of each page. Who can actually decide such a change in this wiki?!? --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: What substantial problem do you see with CC-BY 2.5? I agree that we should add the "any later version" clause, though technically that's problematic at this point.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 11:09, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Selecting ONE license of many for this definition of content freedom marks this one license special. Why CCby2.5? Why not FAL (LAL) 1.2? Why not GFDL? Why not GPL? If there should be a license for the definition's content at all, it should be every single of the accepted 'free content' licenses (are the ones on the licenses page valid free content licenses?) or something extremely simple and permissive as what the GNU project uses for it's web text content. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 20:33, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::PS: A terrible solution would be something like "every change made starting with 04. Dec 2007 is licensed under all of the following licenses and any of their later versions"<br />
<br />
Doesn't CC-BY 2.5 itself say that it can be relicensed under any later version (and any national version)?<br />
<br />
Allowing reuse of content under any free cultural work license would be certainly wiser, though. It's a bit strange that free cultural works are not permitted to include the definition of free cultural works (unless they use cc-by license, and only that). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 22:53, 23 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Why can't they? The cc-by license isn't a "share alike" license. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: The cc-by still has a freaking load of text in it and this is a problem. The free software definition is licensed under "Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." that's ''it''. overkill is the right word. read [http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/texinfo/Verbatim-Copying-License.html#Verbatim-Copying-License this]. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: That’s not a free license. There is no permission to change the article. -- [[User:Sloyment|Sloyment]] ([[User talk:Sloyment|talk]]) 21:39, 17 July 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Existing exemptions ==<br />
<br />
''Free Culture Licenses do not take rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.''<br />
<br />
What exactly does this section intend to state? In the strict sense, a license can never limit an exemption (thats why it is called an exemption). If it's meant in a more general sense, saying that FC licenses are not intended to limit your rights, thats not quite true: they do limit your right to relicense derivative works.<br />
<br />
For example, some countries have a concept called panorama freedom: photos made of copyrighted buildings and statues do not need permission from the copyright owner. Thus if somebody takes a picture of a statue, he can treat it as if it were fully his own work: sell it for money, grant limited distribution rights etc. If the statue was under a free "viral" license, that license would explicitly forbid this (the photo being a derivative work). Thus free licenses ''can'' take away rights (not freedoms though; actually they take away your right to reduce the freedom of others to use your work). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 01:35, 24 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
==An Objective Definition of Free?==<br />
<br />
I've written two books about copyright, (http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/index.htm) "Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP Law" and (http://www.greglondon.com/libre/index.htm) Libre Labyrinth". Both are licensed CC-BY. "Bounty Hunters" is more geared towards understanding how to find copyright laws that are fair for All Rights Reserved applications and how Free/Libre/Open projects fit into that context. "Libre Labyrinth" focuses on objectively describing and comparing different Free/Libre/Open licenses.<br />
<br />
The GNU-GPL is graphed out on pages 40 and 41 of "Libre Labyrinth". The main point is that all the "rooms" (all the areas that could be monopolized through some IP law) are open to one another. All the "doors" have been taken off the hinges (it's a bit of an odd metaphor for explaing Venn Diagrams that include allowed state transistions, but it's explained in the beginning of the book, and it seems to work), so there is no one-way trap-doors that allow someone to monopolize the work.<br />
<br />
It would seem that this would qualify as an objectively measurable definition of "Free". I thought you might find this useful, but didn't want to put my own works into your wiki. Conflict of interest, and all that. If this is useful, someone can put it in your main page. If it's not, then feel free to leave it out.<br />
<br />
[[User:GregLondon|GregLondon]] 00:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: Upload not functional ==<br />
<br />
Make the uploaded files directory writable please, I cannot upload files. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:44, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Save It ==<br />
<br />
Can we save it to a music CD<br />
<br />
==Box at top==<br />
Should be (+ "a" or + "the" as the 3rd word):<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is a stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}} [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] 23:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:"the" added, thank you! [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 13:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: favicon ==<br />
<br />
Please add the logo as a favicon, it's hard to find this site between lots of tabs... --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 17:01, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Mako]] has added this. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 20:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It doesn't seem to be working any more. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It's back now [http://freedomdefined.org/favicon.ico] but favicons can take a while to show up so you might not see it straight away. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 15:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Preamble for 1.1 ==<br />
<br />
I think in the 1.1 version we should try to rewrite the preamble in response to some of the feedback we've received. In particular:<br />
<br />
: In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies. <br />
<br />
This seems unnecessarily polemical and polarizing. We want to invite even those people to participate who utilize traditional copyright protections for some of their works. My preference would be to replace this entire paragraph with a more positive one about the power of sharing and collaboration. I don't think we need to take a pro-copyright stance in this definition, but I also don't think we need or want to take an anti-copyright one. Thoughts?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 22:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes Eric, [http://groups.google.co.nz/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/1fbba7c35655360e this is currently being discussed on the Wikieducator list] at the moment, but you are right to try and bring it here. My feeling is that the paragraph is so poor that it should be deleted immediately. Then you/we could build something up if it leaves a void. Personally I think the document is better without it all together, and is not diminished if nothing is there for a time. [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 15:07 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
:: I am an advocate of the free cultural works definition and have recently been directed to issues in the preamble of the definition in the WikiEducator discussion forums. The WikiEducator community have adopted the free cultural works definition and I think that the paragraph referred to below does not serve the interests of the definition. I propose that the following paragraph be deleted from the definition: "''In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.''" Having been on the receiving end of the FUD for many years, I appreciate and understand the sentiments expressed in the paragraph. Perhaps we should create an addendum containing further reading and key resources to articulate these concerns, but I don't think they should be included in the main body of the definition. <br />
--[[User:Mackiwg|Mackiwg]] 23:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus and take action on that paragraph...? [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 17:57 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
I've made an [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=prev&oldid=5059 edit] to [[Definition/Unstable]] per the above; feel free to revise further. If I don't hear anything back within the next week, I'm just going to do a quick 1.1 update myself.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Yes, neutral is better. I think this is the only part that can be considered biased, the rest looks fine. ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 15:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Updated.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:02, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Have further tweaked the Unstable version where I thought there were still unnecessary words, or confusing sentences. Hope to see them in the Definition at some stage. --[[User:Leighblackall|Leighblackall]] 21:35, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks so much for removing this. Now it's actually a neutral definition instead of advocacy. Maybe there's hope for the project after all. :) [[wikipedia:User:Omegatron/Non-free_content|Omegatron]] 14:27, 11 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Photos and their use ==<br />
<br />
As a photographer I am concerned with how my work is used. Now having said that I do fully understand the concept of creative commons and free cultural work and other "licenses" however the biggest issue I see is that "one size does not fit all". For example Creative Commons uses music/audio terms such as "remix" and in 30 years do taking photographs I have never once been asked if someone could "remix" my image. GFDL is meant for text - so using it for an image and saying "No Back cover text" does not fully apply.<br />
<br />
That being said the FCW license might work great for images with a few re-wording or clarifications. And these are suggestions, rough ones at that.<br />
<br />
''The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.''<br />
<br />
For images the word "perform" might be changed to "display". However for an image I feel "exceptions" should be considered. For example - a photographer takes an image in New Orleans lower ninth ward of an Afro-American who was killed during katrina and they release it "freely". Based upon the FCW "there must be no exception" so a user could re-purpose that image for use in a pro-Nazi poster. A CCL does have "fine print" that state the licensee can ''not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation'' which I think, in relations to images, is a good thing. Perhaps the FCW could change the wording of "There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations" to something along the lines of "There can be exceptions regarding, for example, exploitation or racist use" <br />
<br />
''The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".''<br />
<br />
I do not see any issues with this part as it would relate to images.<br />
<br />
''The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied''<br />
<br />
The concept is fine but it's execution in relation to an image might not fully work. Redistribution is fine. Adding to a collection is fine. Anyone can copy it is fine. Sales however is where you run into issues. Look at the "exception" issue(s) for an idea. If there were to be no restrictions on use there would be no doubt an image could be used in a manner it was never intended to be used and be used in that manner to make money. Again - perhaps in regards to images there could be a choice of the photographer to disallow use for hate "profit" (ie - use the image in pro-hate merchandise or literature). Likewise a religious group could take an image of someone dying and place it on a t-shirt saying "Aids Kills" and sell it. I fully believe that a photographer should be allowed some choice in how their image is used. <br />
<br />
''The freedom to distribute derivative works''<br />
<br />
Sort of a given with any of these "free" licenses. But perhaps in conjunction with any sort of image options as defined above this would slightly change what the "derivative work" could be used for. <br />
<br />
Probably most of this could be added in the [[Permissible restrictions]] section too. It would be good to hear other photographers input on this and have a discussion on ways to make this work. [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] 21:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Time scope and revocability of licenses, etc... ==<br />
<br />
The present definition is unclear concerning <br />
<br />
* Licenses allowing free use for a definite time scope (1 year only, 1 week only)<br />
<br />
* Licenses with a "for the time being", or "until revoked" clause.<br />
<br />
The only point where the present definition clearly rejects revocability is in connection with patents : ''should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and <u>irrevocable</u> royalty-free grant...'' but there is no such condition in connection with copyright.<br />
<br />
I suggest that future versions of the definition should address this concern. <br />
<br />
I have also questions concerning the space scope : what about non-worldwide, free-in-only-a-few-countries licenses ?<br />
<br />
[[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 04:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I made a small edit in the unstable version, to reflect this concern : ([http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=prev&oldid=5358 diff]). [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 04:48, 20 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Compare with the following statement in the definition of « free software » : ''In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.'' [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The Free Software Definition, by the Free Software Foundation]. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 20:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:If I understand the intent correctly, it seems to me that it would help to express the "without limitation" principle by explicitly stating that rights granted by any free license should be both '''''perpetual''''' (non-expiring) and '''''non-revocable'''''. Do all of the current stock licenses explicitly express this? [[User:Danorton|Danorton]] 17:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I agree that this is a very important clarification to make in the definition. It seems that wording to this effect has been added and removed from various versions of the official definition over the years (and is absent in the current version). I'm not sure why its inclusion has been inconsistent, as it seems to have been part of the unstable version consistently since at least 2006. Perhaps Erik could respond to this, as he is the person who has actually implemented most of the version updates. Is there a reason we don't want to define free licenses as unrevokable or is it just that most people consider this to be obvious? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: I don't recall that this has been added before - perhaps I missed it? If you can find it, could you provide a diff? I don't have any problem with adding this to the definition, but I'll post the issue to our mailing list so other people are aware of it as well.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::The very specific language that has been in the unstable version for a while has never been in this version, as far as I know, but the statement that the freedoms "should be available to anyone, anywhere, '''anytime'''" was in both version 0.9 and version 1.0, but was stripped out of version 1.1. This led to a discussion about whether that phrase should be included in the commons licensing policy or not. Personally, I don't think the sentence itself is that important, but the definition should specifically address the issue of revokability somewhere. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Agree that "perpetual" and "irrevocable" should be added. Popular free licenses already do so, and the fear that the author can revoke the work any time and thereby disrupt your financial plans can be a very large barrier to reuse for e.g. a book publisher. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: '''"Perpetual and non-revocable"''' are core tenets of open licensing, and need to be stated explicitly. The can of worms which is created by revocable licensing would make this whole endeavor unworkable and open to massive ''a posteriori'' abuse. What's more, it would also create an atmosphere of uncertainty about the freedoms being granted, and potentially also tie up the community in courtrooms. This is why free software and CC licenses state it plainly, and OSHW needs to do likewise. [[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 22:46, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Permanent URLs ==<br />
<br />
This needs stable URLs fast. It is impossible to link to it from a legal document as long as the text can change at any time. [[Definition/1.0]] and [[Definition/1.1]] should contain unchanging texts, and so should [[Definition/1.0/de]] etc. And they should be referred from the header so readers realize [[Definition]] is not a stable text.<br />
<br />
(Also, could someone clean out the porn ads from the mailing list home page? Or at least remove the link to them from the site notice?) --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 04:00, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I don't know if this is what you need, but there is a "permanent link" in the toolbox, in the left margin. However, "The definition itself is not a license", so be careful not to use in a legal document as if it were a license. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 07:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The definition is inteded to be used in legal documents to define what kinds of licenses are acceptable. That's how the Wikimedia Foundation used it in their [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy licensing policy resolution], and IIRC this site was originally created as part of that resolution. And the link to this definition (which plays quite a fundamental role in the policy) now points to a different text than it did when the resolution was passed. Though it says explicitly 1.0, so the intention is clear there, but even if the reader does realise that he has been sent to the wrong page (whch does not exactly create an air of professionalism btw), he has no idea where to find the tight text. (Keep in mind that the intended target audience of this site goes much beyond the wiki world, so the reader is not neccessarily wiki-savvy.) When the wording of a document is less cautious and doesn't explicitly name the version, that could lead to even bigger problems. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 20:09, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Tgr, I got your point, you're right that separate versions should be uniquely accessed. This is an easy job to do, and you can help me if you please, as most of the pages are not protected. It is possible to find the precise version before the 1.0->1.1 update and copy it into a subpage, and then exchange links in order to have all readers informed. I will spend some time in the weekend... ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
: I am not able to help for the Korean translation only. I cannot recognize words "version" and "stable" in order to make a precise change in the wordings. For the latin and cyrillic languages, even for Greek, this was an easy job to do. ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 10:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== First sentence ==<br />
<br />
The first sentence of this article currently says:<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.''<br />
<br />
I propose that it be changed to:<br />
<br />
''This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely applied, studied, copied, modified, and/or distributed, by anyone, for any purpose.''<br />
<br />
I have just added "distributed", which appears in other parts of the article, but is strangely missing in the first sentence. In my opinion, "distributed" is important enough to merit inclusion in the first sentence. --[[User:Antonielly|Antonielly]] 18:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Box at top: link correction==<br />
<br />
I think the link to "Please help updating it ..." should go to [[Definition/Unstable]] and not to [[:Template:Definition-langs]]. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 17:45, 4 March 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. I changed the link. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 13:15, 10 March 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== New Translations ==<br />
<br />
Please add Croatian language translation to the page. BTW, is there a policy on red links? Could you perhaps fall back to sans /<LanguageCode> and show a template with a translated text message of why this has happened, and where to click to create a /<LanguageCode> page --[[User:Paxcoder|Paxcoder]] ([[User talk:Paxcoder|talk]]) 19:26, 4 June 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Croatian added, thanks for the translation.<br />
: I don’t understand the proposal – ''which'' language codes would we show? There is a link to [[Translations]]; maybe the page should be improved with better documentation on how to create a new translation, but that’s about it?<br />
: --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 07:54, 5 June 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Hey, thanks for adding it. What I meant was: For pages that do not exist in a certain language, redirect to the original page (English, thus sans the language code suffix), and display a message above the article explaining what happened. This template would be translated in each language, and would look something like this: "This is the original (English) version of the requested article, please contribute a [[<CurrentPage>/<LanguageCode>|<Language> Translation]]". --[[User:Paxcoder|Paxcoder]] ([[User talk:Paxcoder|talk]]) 12:39, 5 June 2013 (EDT) EDIT: --[[User:Paxcoder|Paxcoder]] ([[User talk:Paxcoder|talk]]) 12:46, 5 June 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Translations ==<br />
<br />
It would be wonderful if the wiki implements [[wikipedia:mw:Extension:Translate|Extension:Translate]]. It would be some work to be done to move existing translations to the new system but that is not that hard. It is much easier to track changes to the original page and update them in a translation this way (not to say that the translation itself becomes easier). --[[User:Base|Base]] ([[User talk:Base|talk]]) 23:49, 10 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That’s correct, but I’d say changes to the original page are very rare on this wiki, so it might not be worth it. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 08:53, 11 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Propose numbering of freedoms ==<br />
<br />
When I am talking about free software, I link people to the GNU.org philosophy page. The numbering of the four essential freedoms, 0 through 3, helps me refer to individual ones. However, when referring to a free cultural work or free culture generally, it feels confusing or almost off-topic to link to a page specifically about software. So I link to the Definition here, but I wish it was numbered; preferably the same scheme. This code:<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
<ol start="0"><br />
<li>Use</li><br />
<li>Hack</li><br />
<li>Share</li><br />
<li>Derive</li><br />
</ol><br />
</pre><br />
<br />
yields<br />
<br />
<ol start="0"><br />
<li>Use</li><br />
<li>Hack</li><br />
<li>Share</li><br />
<li>Derive</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
[[User:Arlo James Barnes|Arlo James Barnes]] ([[User talk:Arlo James Barnes|talk]]) 20:03, 19 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Meaning of “We discourage you to ...” ==<br />
<br />
While I'm translating into Japanese, I'm wondering which “We discourage you to use other terms” (in the ''Identifying Free Cultural Works'' section) means, “We don't recommend you to use other terms” or “We're not glad to use other terms.” Does anyone have any idea?<br />
<br />
The old 1.0 translation says “...あなたが他の語を使うのであれば、われわれは失望するでしょう。”, that would be literally interpreted as meaning “We would be disappointed in you, if you use other terms...<br />
<br />
: I am not sure I understand the distinction you are making. I understand it to be “We don't recommend you to use other terms”, which is for me basically equal to “We would be disappointed in you, if you use other terms...” (only differing in tone, not in the basic meaning). I.e. the definition is asking the creators to mark the free content they made as “free content”, because if the authors were to use other terms (like “open access”), the potential consumers (other people, the public) might be confused about the meaning of those terms. For that reason, “we” (the community of Free Cultural Works) do not recommend you to use other terms. Hope that helps. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 09:31, 22 April 2020 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: In Japanese, “we would be disappointed” gives us an impression of them thinking with their hearts, while “we do not recommend” gives a sense of them thinking rationally.<br />
:: I'll change the translation so as to enable to convey the difinition more correctly. Thanks a lot!<br />
:: P.S. I totally forgot to sign my name --[[User:MaySoMusician|MaySoMusician]] ([[User talk:MaySoMusician|talk]]) 17:23, 22 April 2020 (CEST)</div>
MaySoMusician
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition&diff=23726
Talk:Definition
2020-04-21T15:23:44Z
<p>MaySoMusician: /* Meaning of “We discourage you to ...” */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>== What about the applicable law? ==<br />
<br />
If a license has a clause about the applicable law, is the license free?<br />
In my opinion, this clause is a problem because only the people that know a certain law can understand license's implied sides.<br />
<br />
: I think CC are working on licenses covered by Berne/WIPO law only. But a license needs a jurisdiction to avoid confusion or argument over terms and meaning, so in this case having a jurisdiction may protect freedom. --[[User:Rob Myers|Rob<br />
<br />
: The license should not declare itself subject to applicable law (which differs widely and is a moving target dictated to governments by vested interests), otherwise it becomes effectively meaningless and impotent. It should grant its freedoms independently of applicable law. Then if some applicable law tries to restrict it, the finger of blame falls on those who have made the restrictive law, and not on the license. The phrase "subject to applicable law" effectively says "This license offers only those freedoms which those in power wish to legally allow you", and that is not at all in the spirit of the Definition. Let applicable law commit its own crimes against openness --- don't do it for them. [[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 22:24, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== First Thoughts ==<br />
<br />
I had some issues with the definition of free content here. Firstly, the document attempts to define "free content" as so many have done in the past, yet there is no clear definition of what is and isn't free content in the "free content movement" you discuss. It concerns me that a definition is being created in isolation from the wider community without proper discussion.<br />
<br />
I see the definition here models itself on the free software definition, but misses several important and fundamental aspects:<br />
<br />
How does the definition handle digital works (such as images, documents, etc) versus non-digitual works (such as hard-copy books, paintings, sculptures, etc)?<br />
<br />
How should digital works be treated? A digital work, such as a wordprocessor document, can be viewed in two ways: firstly, as a work in and of itself, i.e. content, but also as a piece of software itself that can display a final work. Should you only have the freedom to study a work (content), or should you also have the freedom to study how a work was created (software)?<br />
<br />
The definition talks about the freedom to make and release (distribute?) modifications but it doesn't say anything about source copies of work. I can think of several examples where the freedom to make modifications can be provided, but without a source copy of a work (i.e. in the format preferred for making modifications) making modifications could be prohibitive:<br />
<br />
* Protected PDF - sure, decrypting such a PDF is possible but its a) tricky to export a PDF to a format that can be modified with all the information intact (images, tables, etc), and b) it may be illegal to decrypt protected PDFs in certain juristictions (DMCA?)<br />
* Text content as image files - a user could allow users the freedom to modify his written works but only distribute them in image format. It is difficult for downstream users to then extract the text content<br />
<br />
You also talk about "free content licenses" where you should really be talking about free content works: a license enables a free content work, but<br />
<br />
Free experession is not the same as free content: you can have the right to free expresssion without having free content, and free content does not guarantee free expression.<br />
<br />
I hope this is helpful. --[[User:Rgladwell|Rgladwell]] 20:25, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for your comments. If you don't mind, I will move them to [[Talk:Definition/Unstable]] and respond there, just to have all comments in one place. First thoughts: You raise a very good point. Is it possible for something to be free content without the "source code" (or something equivalent) being available? Under the current definition, it is. Perhaps we need to find a wording that requires source availabiliy where such sources are essential to modifying the work. More later,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:42, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::I've dispatched some of the comments into their own sections in Definition/Unstable. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 22:16, 1 May 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::Is there somewhere I can sign? -rhY-<br />
<br />
::In terms of source requirements, should it be more along the lines of source must be supplied where it existed in the making of the derivative and in the case of simple copies, if source was available for the original?<br />
<br />
Wow ... you even frame/structure Talk?! ... meh. Anyhow, ''nota'': you have Definition as your default index (wrong ... on basic principle, wrong ... you program? think trampolene) but Definition links to the rest of the site very very poorly. --BenTrem 68.148.26.220 01:07, 25 June 2006 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== versioning ==<br />
License 333 and version 0.66 -- it is a sign! Excellent.<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Open Knowledge Definition ==<br />
<br />
Last september/october the [http://www.okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation] 'ported' the Open Source Definiton to produce the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/ Open Knowledge Definition] ([http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html full text]).<br />
<br />
This came out of various discussions with people working on open geodata, open access, and open databases of scientific data. As I wrote then:<br />
<br />
"The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) provides an answer to the question: what is open knowledge? It puts forward, in a simple and clear manner, principles that define open knowledge and which open knowledge licenses must satisfy.<br />
<br />
The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access' journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential blurring of what is open and what is not.<br />
<br />
In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition, by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in achieving these ends."<br />
<br />
I therefore think this new initiative is a big step forward at a time, when at least to judge from my experience of debates about the CC license at Free Culture UK, there is no clear consensus about terms such as 'Free Content' (and therefore no consensus about the norms of the community).<br />
<br />
Given the common interest in these issues I'd very much like to get further involved in the FCED -- and parhaps also look at a way to merge the OKD and the FCED.<br />
<br />
--RufusPollock<br />
<br />
== My take ==<br />
<br />
:''"Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other works do not benefit from artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely."''<br />
<br />
I think this needs some revising. Production and quality do not benefit from artificial scarcity- individual works may very much so benefit. The last sentence needs some amending- Free content is not just used Freely, but ''more''. An important distinction to my mind.<br />
<br />
:#''the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression''<br />
:#''the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies ''<br />
<br />
This freedom isn't very clear. Does this involve not charging, or are "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fees acceptable?<br />
<br />
::My take on this question: those fees are not acceptable as normally understood. But it does not involve not charging either. For instance, in Free Software, you can charge whatever you can manage when someone obtains a copy from you. That you cannot do is make them pay you a fee when they then make copies of that copy for themselves.<br />
<br />
:''"Any original work of authorship is copyrighted. Under copyright law, authors are considered God-like "creators" and are given legal powers they can use against those who duplicate "their" content in altered or unaltered form."''<br />
<br />
Personally, I'd like a bit of a mention of the artificiality of copyright. That first line certainly makes it sound like copyright is a God-given natural right. <br />
<br />
More generally, the attribution section strikes me as troublesome. What happens if I take an article, on Fujiwara no Teika, say, which is a stub, and work like the dickens on it, until it is orders of magnitude larger, such that there is not so much as a single word in common with the original article? Should the first person still be credited as the original author? --maru ([[User:129.21.121.235|129.21.121.235]] 06:47, 6 May 2006 (CEST))<br />
<br />
== Adelphi ==<br />
<br />
Please also consult the [http://www.adelphicharter.org/ Adelphi charter].<br />
<br />
And regarding Public domain there is also the concept of "gemeinfrei"/common free in droit' auteur regulation. <br />
i.e. public property vs. free to use<br />
<br />
==The freedom to use and perform the work==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see the word "display" added to this since perform covers music and plays while display would cover films and pictures.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:46, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Since we speak of ''any use, private or public'', and all related rights, this is covered, but I agree that we can & should explicitly enumerate it in the next version.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:45, 14 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Discussion list ==<br />
<br />
Is it possible to host the discussion list elsewhere than Google Groups? Not everyone wants to centralize their activity in a Google account. Not to mention that plain-jane Mailman archives are so much more usable than Google's system. Thanks. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 12:44, 16 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:I can host a mailman list for this on Wikia if there's no objection to that. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 14:18, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks for the offer - but I'd prefer to host the list with Mako. He's already offered to set up a list for us. As a private company in the wiki space which, I hope, will one day adopt the definition, I don't want Wikia to be seen as in any way influencing its content (same reason I wouldn't host the list with Wikimedia).--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks, anything resembling a normal mailing-list with public archives will be ok. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:31, 18 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Metaphor suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to thank the developers of this definition for clearly distinguishing between works that are truly free, and those that are only semi-free. One thing the concept lacks, though, is a simple metaphor as in "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech", that can be used to illustrate the basic distinction of this paradigm in a non-technical way. Not sure if such a thing belongs in an official definition, but I think it's something we should have around. I think I might have come up with something helpful, which is explained in the passage below:<br />
<br />
''Many licenses are called "free", but they are free in different ways. One has to ask, is a work "free to pamphlet" or "free to marionette"? A "free to pamphlet" work may be free to hand out copies (while rewriting or sale is restricted), but a "free to marionette" work is free to adapt into a marionette show, and to sell tickets at the door to rent the theatre and feed the hungry puppetteers.''--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 00:03, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: I think that is a nice metaphor for an essay. I would encourage you to draft an essay here -- I hope that, like the GNU site, freedomdefined.org will eventually be a solid collection of philosophical material.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:13, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I've written something at [[Free to marionette]]. Not sure where it goes in the structure, though.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 09:29, 24 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::I've collected that and some other material I found here at [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]. There didn't seem to be any established place for such material till now, so I just went ahead and created one.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 08:01, 10 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Source data ==<br />
<br />
I think the source data section will still need some work to deal with cases where such data is simply not obtainable; IMHO that should not make the work non-free.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:11, 19 February 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think this is a very tricky part. The source vs. binary duality is very different in the case of a creative work. If I took a photo of a flower would the source data be the flower itself, the raw format of the photo, or would the jpg be enough? If I released a png after adjusting the white balance, would I still have to release the raw format for a work to be free and be excused only if I happen to 'accidentally' destroy the raw data? I think that as long as a work is editable the source data is irrelevant. In the case of software, not releasing source places a technical impediment to modifying the work. In the case of a 3D scene this might also be the case, but in the case of an image it is clearly not. In the case of an audio file, or a film, would the author have to release the off cuts? I would not think so. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 16:07, 13 March 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
I think is this fine to distinguish between works where there are no "source data" and where there is. A not yet fleshed-out thought is that anything that can be modified non-destructively should be available for distribution in the preferred form for modification. [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:28, 27 March 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
=== Adding a "... to the same extent as the author" ===<br />
I think I very much agree with [[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]]. I'm wondering whether actually the extent of any of the four freedoms is not quite clear. And all points in the section "Protection of Freedoms" are only tackling specific examples where the missing extent of these four freedoms could be problematic. Would it be possible to find a more general criteria which covers everything in the "Protection of Freedoms" section? I first thought about maybe changing for instance the first sentence in the summary of Definition/Unstable to:<br />
<br />
''Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can Use, Study, Copy, Change and Improve'' '''''to the same extent as the author'''''.<br />
<br />
So if the author can for instance use and study it at any time, then the author would not be allowed to place any additional restrictions. And any tools and raw data that make it easier for the author to modify the work would have to be available to anyone else too. An author would also not be allowed for instance to publish a work for instance under the mpeg4 format, as the author can for instance use or copy it at any time, but not anyone else could due to the license fees under certain other conditions. I'm not quite sure whether this addition might actually mark too many works, works which are actually non-"free", as a Free Cultural Work for one thing. And for another whether it'd be problematic that in certain cases it might not be easily provable whether the author is using additional data / tools to modify the work: For instance someone publishes a text under a CC-BY license within a pdf document from which anyone can easily copy and then modify the text. However, if the author has additional source data, for instance LaTex files, which allows the author to change certain content easier, then it'd probably be quite difficult to prove whether the author has and uses such LaTex source code. --[[User:T X|T X]] 12:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, now found a good example for my feeling, "I'm not quite sure whether this addition might actually mark too many works [as Free Cultural Works]": If the author's work is a derivative of a non Free Cultural Work, then suddenly the new work could become a Free Cultural Work. For instance the original work only allowed the usage of the work while making a headstand on a 1.23m high table. Then suddenly the derivative work inheriting this requirement would be marked as a Free Cultural Work. This could be fixed with the addition of a requirement that a derivative work would only be a Free Cultural Work if the original work was a Free Cultural Work too. --[[User:T X|T X]] 13:02, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
:: Grr, and just found another example why a "to the same extent as the author" won't quite work: For any license the author is usually allowed to distribute his/her own work under another, additional license later. For instance although a software is licensed under GPL, the author can additionally allow explicit usage under non-GPL terms to certain people or parties. Therefore a GPL work would not be considered a "Free Cultural Work" under my modified version... --[[User:T X|T X]] 04:51, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well anyways, maybe someone else gets my point and intent behind that addition and can come up with a better modification.<br />
<br />
== Copyleft suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I would like to see a [[discussion of copyleft]] and what it needs to have to promote / protect a pool of Free Works.<br />
<br />
==Moral rights==<br />
<br />
There are some moral rights (''droit d'auteur'' not ''copyright'') that I have as an author and due to legal restriction I can't waive them. Does this make my work unfree? This page or [[Permissible restrictions]] does not address this issue.<br />
<br />
PS. You may call me old fashioned, but I don't think sentences like these give a mature and intelligent impression: "They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how 'their content' can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies." [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Samulili Samulili from Wikimedia projects]<br />
:I agree, the hostility is unnecessary and immature. [[User:130.58.68.159|130.58.68.159]] 22:47, 1 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:In my opinion, moral rights do not make your own work un-free, because they don't forbid other people to e.g. make modifications, they allow you to oppose some modifications on a case by case basis. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 20:21, 6 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Commercial Restrictions==<br />
<br />
What about some restrictions on the commercial distribution of a work? That is, a free culture work can be copied and those copies can be shared but with some restrictions on selling those copies when permission is not granted.<br />
<br />
:That isn't free content. Commercial Restrictions are explicitly not [[permissible restrictions]]. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 18:20, 3 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== In the summary... ==<br />
<br />
considered "free." --> considered "free".--[[User:Alnokta|Alnokta]] 20:47, 9 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== "god-like creators"? ==<br />
<br />
From the definition: "In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used."<br />
<br />
Is this even true? The purpose of Western copyright law is not meant to prop authors upon some pedestal to be worshiped, but to provide direct incentives for them to publish in the first place. Thus society benefits from the all-rights-reserved work, even if to a lesser extent than if work was freely licensed. I recall at least one US Supreme Court case finding that the primary purpose of copyright/patents is to provide for the benefit of society, and secondly to reward the author if he/she so chooses. Congress has made policy decisions to exempt works of federal employees from copyright, provide for "fair usage", and set (generous) copyright duration limits.<br />
<br />
My incentive to publish most of my work under free licenses is to promote a progressive international society. I expect that the Congress that passed the original version of copyright law shared the same values, as they have created the foundation which makes our work possible. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] (Who is not a lawyer.) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:True, but one has to appreciate the significant difference between original intentions and truth on the ground. I believe that the '''Original''' intentions of the people who first came up with the idea of copyright where not to different from ours, when taken in the context of the period. Yet, I think that legislative development is an evolutionary process, and evolutionary process exist in a state of equilibrium which can become unstable, at which point a fork (not dissimilar to a source code fork) tends to occur. <br />
:I think that in the case of Creative Works this fork has occurred (with the emergence of the internet as the critical factor driving the imbalance) with the "Freedom Culture" and the "IP protectionist Culture" as its two branches, both relying on the same resource, namely "Copyright laws" to archive their goals. Therefore, it is very important to make it absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture", by stating the state of affairs as they are today, not based n original intentions. On the other hand a '''Definition''' ought not to rely on emotionally charged statements to provide its information. I think that statement needs to be changed not because of what it tries to convey, but because of how it does it ... because at the end of the day the medium ''is'' the message. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 15:27, 13 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::By "truth on the ground," do you mean to say that aggressive copyright compliance has historically increased? The idea is plausible, but I am interested in seeing direct evidence of such a claim.<br />
<br />
::I agree that making "absolutely clear how the "Freedom Culture" differs from the "IP Protectionist Culture"" is terribly important. I also posit that we should respect both and acknowledge that "free" is not always appropriate. The author needs to make that choice, a choice partially informed by freedomdefined.org. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 16:04, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::By the "truth on the ground" I mean the actual legislation and regulations that are in effect today that are supposed to implement that original intention, as well as case law, actual enforcement, the current context particularly asyncronisity with the digital media, adequacy in view of globalisation etc ... and current public perception of those intentions <br />
<br />
:::So, in short, I think we are agreeing. Where I do tend to differ slightly is on the appropriatness of freedom. I think that while in the current situation ""free" is not always appropriate", this in not necessary to the human condition, but rather and incidental effect of history. On the other hand a definition like this needs to address the here and now, and not some potential state-of-affairs where humanity enjoys universal intellectual freedom. But, again, we mostly agree see [[Talk:FAQ#What about logos? Why do all open source free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos?|here]] for e.g. --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 18:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
::::Yes. I should add that I am one to enjoy history :-) I'll catch you around, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Why the sneering tone towards authorship anyway? Free Content isn't about limiting author's rights, it's about convincing people that it's better for authors to share, not that they're misguided in wanting some control at all. It's really all about the author's control over the work, because without it an author couldn't say "you must follow the GPL" any more than he could say 'no copying.' [[User:130.58.194.111|130.58.194.111]] 05:08, 22 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Photos should not be modified ==<br />
<br />
There are legal restrictions on the use and modification of photos, especially if they show living people. Personality rights in many countries do not allow to use photos in a way that could be regarded as libel. Photos of buildings or industrial products do not include the right to reproduce them. So the definition of free photos should be less permissive than the current definition and should not include the right of unlimited changes. --[[User:84.137.109.177|84.137.109.177]] 21:28, 19 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Does this need to be in the definition? Surely, all free cultural works are subject to other laws. Free software programs that capture photos in such a way that is governed by personality rights would be affected by those laws, but that doesn't make the software non-free or require the free software defintion, or a license for that matter, to include a clause about personality rights. If the definition, or a license, were to include clauses about every other possible law, there would be no point. What about child pornography, for example?<br />
: Good point, but I don't think it ought to be in the definition. --[[User:Balleyne|Balleyne]] 00:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Trademarks? ==<br />
<br />
There is no mention of trademark restrictions in this article. Does the section '''No other restrictions or limitations''' also include trademark restrictions? To give an example, the [[w:Empire State Building]] is protected by trademark restrictions, so it is not "free of limitations". Is a photo of it -- a photo that was released by the photographer under a free license -- to be considered "free" according to the definition? / [[commons:User:Fred J]] 17:55, 29 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
:This is an excellent question. The best example I can think of is Linux, which is obviously freely-licensed and yet there was a huge controversy and court case surrounding the trademark issue. See [[w:Linux|Copyright, licensing and the Linux trademark]] and [http://news.com.com/Torvalds+weighs+in+on+Linux+trademark+row/2100-7344_3-5841222.html]. Usually it's not a problem, but the trademark issue can make things complicated. Wikipedia, which is GFDl of course, uses trademarks all the time, and has a disclaimer about it: [[w:Wikipedia:General_disclaimer]]. [[w:User:Nadav1]] 16:06, 31 May 2007 (CEST)<br />
<br />
::See also [[:m:User talk:Eloquence#Licensing policy: request for clarification]], where I had asked Erik Möller for a clarification regarding that point. The issue goes beyond trademarks. Photographs of people, for instance, cannot be used in advertising without the subject's express consent in many countries, AFAIK (personality rights). What about design protection? And so on... [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 11:15, 1 June 2007 (CEST)<br />
:Child Pornography is absolutely illegal in all jurisdictions.If the subject being photographed is not of legal age to consent to their photo\\and the legal guardian is not looking out for the minors best interest. Once the child reaches the legal age of consent, in the juris of the minors residence, the minor will be able to give "Free Will" consent.<br />
<br />
== Wiki content license ==<br />
<br />
This is terrible, you selected some license, which is still in heavy 'development' to license the content and didn't even say '2.5 or later'. Please! Use instead something like the gnu project does with "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." at the end of each page. Who can actually decide such a change in this wiki?!? --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: What substantial problem do you see with CC-BY 2.5? I agree that we should add the "any later version" clause, though technically that's problematic at this point.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 11:09, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::Selecting ONE license of many for this definition of content freedom marks this one license special. Why CCby2.5? Why not FAL (LAL) 1.2? Why not GFDL? Why not GPL? If there should be a license for the definition's content at all, it should be every single of the accepted 'free content' licenses (are the ones on the licenses page valid free content licenses?) or something extremely simple and permissive as what the GNU project uses for it's web text content. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 20:33, 4 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
::PS: A terrible solution would be something like "every change made starting with 04. Dec 2007 is licensed under all of the following licenses and any of their later versions"<br />
<br />
Doesn't CC-BY 2.5 itself say that it can be relicensed under any later version (and any national version)?<br />
<br />
Allowing reuse of content under any free cultural work license would be certainly wiser, though. It's a bit strange that free cultural works are not permitted to include the definition of free cultural works (unless they use cc-by license, and only that). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 22:53, 23 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Why can't they? The cc-by license isn't a "share alike" license. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (CET)<br />
<br />
:: The cc-by still has a freaking load of text in it and this is a problem. The free software definition is licensed under "Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved." that's ''it''. overkill is the right word. read [http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/texinfo/Verbatim-Copying-License.html#Verbatim-Copying-License this]. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: That’s not a free license. There is no permission to change the article. -- [[User:Sloyment|Sloyment]] ([[User talk:Sloyment|talk]]) 21:39, 17 July 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Existing exemptions ==<br />
<br />
''Free Culture Licenses do not take rights away -- they are always optional to accept, and if accepted, they grant freedoms which copyright law alone does not provide. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing exemptions in copyright laws.''<br />
<br />
What exactly does this section intend to state? In the strict sense, a license can never limit an exemption (thats why it is called an exemption). If it's meant in a more general sense, saying that FC licenses are not intended to limit your rights, thats not quite true: they do limit your right to relicense derivative works.<br />
<br />
For example, some countries have a concept called panorama freedom: photos made of copyrighted buildings and statues do not need permission from the copyright owner. Thus if somebody takes a picture of a statue, he can treat it as if it were fully his own work: sell it for money, grant limited distribution rights etc. If the statue was under a free "viral" license, that license would explicitly forbid this (the photo being a derivative work). Thus free licenses ''can'' take away rights (not freedoms though; actually they take away your right to reduce the freedom of others to use your work). --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 01:35, 24 December 2007 (CET)<br />
<br />
==An Objective Definition of Free?==<br />
<br />
I've written two books about copyright, (http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/index.htm) "Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP Law" and (http://www.greglondon.com/libre/index.htm) Libre Labyrinth". Both are licensed CC-BY. "Bounty Hunters" is more geared towards understanding how to find copyright laws that are fair for All Rights Reserved applications and how Free/Libre/Open projects fit into that context. "Libre Labyrinth" focuses on objectively describing and comparing different Free/Libre/Open licenses.<br />
<br />
The GNU-GPL is graphed out on pages 40 and 41 of "Libre Labyrinth". The main point is that all the "rooms" (all the areas that could be monopolized through some IP law) are open to one another. All the "doors" have been taken off the hinges (it's a bit of an odd metaphor for explaing Venn Diagrams that include allowed state transistions, but it's explained in the beginning of the book, and it seems to work), so there is no one-way trap-doors that allow someone to monopolize the work.<br />
<br />
It would seem that this would qualify as an objectively measurable definition of "Free". I thought you might find this useful, but didn't want to put my own works into your wiki. Conflict of interest, and all that. If this is useful, someone can put it in your main page. If it's not, then feel free to leave it out.<br />
<br />
[[User:GregLondon|GregLondon]] 00:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: Upload not functional ==<br />
<br />
Make the uploaded files directory writable please, I cannot upload files. --[[User:Qubodup|Qubodup]] 11:44, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Save It ==<br />
<br />
Can we save it to a music CD<br />
<br />
==Box at top==<br />
Should be (+ "a" or + "the" as the 3rd word):<br />
{{divbox|gray|Stable version|This is a stable version '''1.0''' of the definition. The version number will be updated as the definition develops. The editable version of the definition can be found at [[Definition/Unstable]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information, and see [[translations]] if you want to contribute a version in another language.}} [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] 23:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:"the" added, thank you! [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 13:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== TECHNICAL: favicon ==<br />
<br />
Please add the logo as a favicon, it's hard to find this site between lots of tabs... --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 17:01, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Mako]] has added this. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 20:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It doesn't seem to be working any more. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It's back now [http://freedomdefined.org/favicon.ico] but favicons can take a while to show up so you might not see it straight away. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 15:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Preamble for 1.1 ==<br />
<br />
I think in the 1.1 version we should try to rewrite the preamble in response to some of the feedback we've received. In particular:<br />
<br />
: In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies. <br />
<br />
This seems unnecessarily polemical and polarizing. We want to invite even those people to participate who utilize traditional copyright protections for some of their works. My preference would be to replace this entire paragraph with a more positive one about the power of sharing and collaboration. I don't think we need to take a pro-copyright stance in this definition, but I also don't think we need or want to take an anti-copyright one. Thoughts?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 22:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes Eric, [http://groups.google.co.nz/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/1fbba7c35655360e this is currently being discussed on the Wikieducator list] at the moment, but you are right to try and bring it here. My feeling is that the paragraph is so poor that it should be deleted immediately. Then you/we could build something up if it leaves a void. Personally I think the document is better without it all together, and is not diminished if nothing is there for a time. [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 15:07 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
:: I am an advocate of the free cultural works definition and have recently been directed to issues in the preamble of the definition in the WikiEducator discussion forums. The WikiEducator community have adopted the free cultural works definition and I think that the paragraph referred to below does not serve the interests of the definition. I propose that the following paragraph be deleted from the definition: "''In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.''" Having been on the receiving end of the FUD for many years, I appreciate and understand the sentiments expressed in the paragraph. Perhaps we should create an addendum containing further reading and key resources to articulate these concerns, but I don't think they should be included in the main body of the definition. <br />
--[[User:Mackiwg|Mackiwg]] 23:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I wonder though - given that the discussion page shows a fair number of unresolved or threads without closure, how we will determine consensus and take action on that paragraph...? [http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall Leigh Blackall] 17:57 18 Sept NZ time.<br />
<br />
I've made an [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=prev&oldid=5059 edit] to [[Definition/Unstable]] per the above; feel free to revise further. If I don't hear anything back within the next week, I'm just going to do a quick 1.1 update myself.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 14:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Yes, neutral is better. I think this is the only part that can be considered biased, the rest looks fine. ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 15:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Updated.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 21:02, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Have further tweaked the Unstable version where I thought there were still unnecessary words, or confusing sentences. Hope to see them in the Definition at some stage. --[[User:Leighblackall|Leighblackall]] 21:35, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks so much for removing this. Now it's actually a neutral definition instead of advocacy. Maybe there's hope for the project after all. :) [[wikipedia:User:Omegatron/Non-free_content|Omegatron]] 14:27, 11 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Photos and their use ==<br />
<br />
As a photographer I am concerned with how my work is used. Now having said that I do fully understand the concept of creative commons and free cultural work and other "licenses" however the biggest issue I see is that "one size does not fit all". For example Creative Commons uses music/audio terms such as "remix" and in 30 years do taking photographs I have never once been asked if someone could "remix" my image. GFDL is meant for text - so using it for an image and saying "No Back cover text" does not fully apply.<br />
<br />
That being said the FCW license might work great for images with a few re-wording or clarifications. And these are suggestions, rough ones at that.<br />
<br />
''The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.''<br />
<br />
For images the word "perform" might be changed to "display". However for an image I feel "exceptions" should be considered. For example - a photographer takes an image in New Orleans lower ninth ward of an Afro-American who was killed during katrina and they release it "freely". Based upon the FCW "there must be no exception" so a user could re-purpose that image for use in a pro-Nazi poster. A CCL does have "fine print" that state the licensee can ''not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation'' which I think, in relations to images, is a good thing. Perhaps the FCW could change the wording of "There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations" to something along the lines of "There can be exceptions regarding, for example, exploitation or racist use" <br />
<br />
''The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".''<br />
<br />
I do not see any issues with this part as it would relate to images.<br />
<br />
''The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied''<br />
<br />
The concept is fine but it's execution in relation to an image might not fully work. Redistribution is fine. Adding to a collection is fine. Anyone can copy it is fine. Sales however is where you run into issues. Look at the "exception" issue(s) for an idea. If there were to be no restrictions on use there would be no doubt an image could be used in a manner it was never intended to be used and be used in that manner to make money. Again - perhaps in regards to images there could be a choice of the photographer to disallow use for hate "profit" (ie - use the image in pro-hate merchandise or literature). Likewise a religious group could take an image of someone dying and place it on a t-shirt saying "Aids Kills" and sell it. I fully believe that a photographer should be allowed some choice in how their image is used. <br />
<br />
''The freedom to distribute derivative works''<br />
<br />
Sort of a given with any of these "free" licenses. But perhaps in conjunction with any sort of image options as defined above this would slightly change what the "derivative work" could be used for. <br />
<br />
Probably most of this could be added in the [[Permissible restrictions]] section too. It would be good to hear other photographers input on this and have a discussion on ways to make this work. [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] 21:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Time scope and revocability of licenses, etc... ==<br />
<br />
The present definition is unclear concerning <br />
<br />
* Licenses allowing free use for a definite time scope (1 year only, 1 week only)<br />
<br />
* Licenses with a "for the time being", or "until revoked" clause.<br />
<br />
The only point where the present definition clearly rejects revocability is in connection with patents : ''should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and <u>irrevocable</u> royalty-free grant...'' but there is no such condition in connection with copyright.<br />
<br />
I suggest that future versions of the definition should address this concern. <br />
<br />
I have also questions concerning the space scope : what about non-worldwide, free-in-only-a-few-countries licenses ?<br />
<br />
[[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 04:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I made a small edit in the unstable version, to reflect this concern : ([http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=prev&oldid=5358 diff]). [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 04:48, 20 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Compare with the following statement in the definition of « free software » : ''In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.'' [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The Free Software Definition, by the Free Software Foundation]. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 20:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:If I understand the intent correctly, it seems to me that it would help to express the "without limitation" principle by explicitly stating that rights granted by any free license should be both '''''perpetual''''' (non-expiring) and '''''non-revocable'''''. Do all of the current stock licenses explicitly express this? [[User:Danorton|Danorton]] 17:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I agree that this is a very important clarification to make in the definition. It seems that wording to this effect has been added and removed from various versions of the official definition over the years (and is absent in the current version). I'm not sure why its inclusion has been inconsistent, as it seems to have been part of the unstable version consistently since at least 2006. Perhaps Erik could respond to this, as he is the person who has actually implemented most of the version updates. Is there a reason we don't want to define free licenses as unrevokable or is it just that most people consider this to be obvious? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: I don't recall that this has been added before - perhaps I missed it? If you can find it, could you provide a diff? I don't have any problem with adding this to the definition, but I'll post the issue to our mailing list so other people are aware of it as well.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::The very specific language that has been in the unstable version for a while has never been in this version, as far as I know, but the statement that the freedoms "should be available to anyone, anywhere, '''anytime'''" was in both version 0.9 and version 1.0, but was stripped out of version 1.1. This led to a discussion about whether that phrase should be included in the commons licensing policy or not. Personally, I don't think the sentence itself is that important, but the definition should specifically address the issue of revokability somewhere. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Agree that "perpetual" and "irrevocable" should be added. Popular free licenses already do so, and the fear that the author can revoke the work any time and thereby disrupt your financial plans can be a very large barrier to reuse for e.g. a book publisher. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: '''"Perpetual and non-revocable"''' are core tenets of open licensing, and need to be stated explicitly. The can of worms which is created by revocable licensing would make this whole endeavor unworkable and open to massive ''a posteriori'' abuse. What's more, it would also create an atmosphere of uncertainty about the freedoms being granted, and potentially also tie up the community in courtrooms. This is why free software and CC licenses state it plainly, and OSHW needs to do likewise. [[User:Morgaine Dinova|Morgaine Dinova]] 22:46, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Permanent URLs ==<br />
<br />
This needs stable URLs fast. It is impossible to link to it from a legal document as long as the text can change at any time. [[Definition/1.0]] and [[Definition/1.1]] should contain unchanging texts, and so should [[Definition/1.0/de]] etc. And they should be referred from the header so readers realize [[Definition]] is not a stable text.<br />
<br />
(Also, could someone clean out the porn ads from the mailing list home page? Or at least remove the link to them from the site notice?) --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 04:00, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I don't know if this is what you need, but there is a "permanent link" in the toolbox, in the left margin. However, "The definition itself is not a license", so be careful not to use in a legal document as if it were a license. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 07:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The definition is inteded to be used in legal documents to define what kinds of licenses are acceptable. That's how the Wikimedia Foundation used it in their [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy licensing policy resolution], and IIRC this site was originally created as part of that resolution. And the link to this definition (which plays quite a fundamental role in the policy) now points to a different text than it did when the resolution was passed. Though it says explicitly 1.0, so the intention is clear there, but even if the reader does realise that he has been sent to the wrong page (whch does not exactly create an air of professionalism btw), he has no idea where to find the tight text. (Keep in mind that the intended target audience of this site goes much beyond the wiki world, so the reader is not neccessarily wiki-savvy.) When the wording of a document is less cautious and doesn't explicitly name the version, that could lead to even bigger problems. --[[User:Tgr|Tgr]] 20:09, 27 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Tgr, I got your point, you're right that separate versions should be uniquely accessed. This is an easy job to do, and you can help me if you please, as most of the pages are not protected. It is possible to find the precise version before the 1.0->1.1 update and copy it into a subpage, and then exchange links in order to have all readers informed. I will spend some time in the weekend... ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
: I am not able to help for the Korean translation only. I cannot recognize words "version" and "stable" in order to make a precise change in the wordings. For the latin and cyrillic languages, even for Greek, this was an easy job to do. ''[[User talk:Spiritia|→]][[User:Spiritia|<span class='autocomment'>Spiritia</span>]]'' 10:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== First sentence ==<br />
<br />
The first sentence of this article currently says:<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.''<br />
<br />
I propose that it be changed to:<br />
<br />
''This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely applied, studied, copied, modified, and/or distributed, by anyone, for any purpose.''<br />
<br />
I have just added "distributed", which appears in other parts of the article, but is strangely missing in the first sentence. In my opinion, "distributed" is important enough to merit inclusion in the first sentence. --[[User:Antonielly|Antonielly]] 18:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Box at top: link correction==<br />
<br />
I think the link to "Please help updating it ..." should go to [[Definition/Unstable]] and not to [[:Template:Definition-langs]]. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 17:45, 4 March 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. I changed the link. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 13:15, 10 March 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== New Translations ==<br />
<br />
Please add Croatian language translation to the page. BTW, is there a policy on red links? Could you perhaps fall back to sans /<LanguageCode> and show a template with a translated text message of why this has happened, and where to click to create a /<LanguageCode> page --[[User:Paxcoder|Paxcoder]] ([[User talk:Paxcoder|talk]]) 19:26, 4 June 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Croatian added, thanks for the translation.<br />
: I don’t understand the proposal – ''which'' language codes would we show? There is a link to [[Translations]]; maybe the page should be improved with better documentation on how to create a new translation, but that’s about it?<br />
: --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 07:54, 5 June 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Hey, thanks for adding it. What I meant was: For pages that do not exist in a certain language, redirect to the original page (English, thus sans the language code suffix), and display a message above the article explaining what happened. This template would be translated in each language, and would look something like this: "This is the original (English) version of the requested article, please contribute a [[<CurrentPage>/<LanguageCode>|<Language> Translation]]". --[[User:Paxcoder|Paxcoder]] ([[User talk:Paxcoder|talk]]) 12:39, 5 June 2013 (EDT) EDIT: --[[User:Paxcoder|Paxcoder]] ([[User talk:Paxcoder|talk]]) 12:46, 5 June 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Translations ==<br />
<br />
It would be wonderful if the wiki implements [[wikipedia:mw:Extension:Translate|Extension:Translate]]. It would be some work to be done to move existing translations to the new system but that is not that hard. It is much easier to track changes to the original page and update them in a translation this way (not to say that the translation itself becomes easier). --[[User:Base|Base]] ([[User talk:Base|talk]]) 23:49, 10 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That’s correct, but I’d say changes to the original page are very rare on this wiki, so it might not be worth it. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 08:53, 11 August 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Propose numbering of freedoms ==<br />
<br />
When I am talking about free software, I link people to the GNU.org philosophy page. The numbering of the four essential freedoms, 0 through 3, helps me refer to individual ones. However, when referring to a free cultural work or free culture generally, it feels confusing or almost off-topic to link to a page specifically about software. So I link to the Definition here, but I wish it was numbered; preferably the same scheme. This code:<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
<ol start="0"><br />
<li>Use</li><br />
<li>Hack</li><br />
<li>Share</li><br />
<li>Derive</li><br />
</ol><br />
</pre><br />
<br />
yields<br />
<br />
<ol start="0"><br />
<li>Use</li><br />
<li>Hack</li><br />
<li>Share</li><br />
<li>Derive</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
[[User:Arlo James Barnes|Arlo James Barnes]] ([[User talk:Arlo James Barnes|talk]]) 20:03, 19 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Your License ==<br />
<br />
Hi!<br />
<br />
There is a problem with the license you use: [[Licenses/CC-BY-2.5]]. I only see: <br />
''<Junior>{{:Licenses/CC-BY }} ----</Ian>''. [[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] ([[User talk:Habitator terrae|talk]]) 12:00, 15 fevereiro 2020 Catanduva SP Brasil (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Meaning of “We discourage you to ...” ==<br />
<br />
While I'm translating into Japanese, I'm wondering which “We discourage you to use other terms” (in the ''Identifying Free Cultural Works'' section) means, “We don't recommend you to use other terms” or “We're not glad to use other terms.” Does anyone have any idea?<br />
<br />
The old 1.0 translation says “...あなたが他の語を使うのであれば、われわれは失望するでしょう。”, that would be literally interpreted as meaning “We would be disappointed in you, if you use other terms...”</div>
MaySoMusician
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Ja&diff=23725
Definition/Ja
2020-04-21T15:06:48Z
<p>MaySoMusician: Change styles in accordance with the original English version</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
{{divbox|1=gray|2=Stable version|3=これは[[Definition/1.1|安定版'''1.1''']]の定義です。このバージョン番号は定義が発展するにつれ更新されます。編集可能なバージョンは[[Definition/Unstable]]にあります。さらに詳しい情報は[[authoring process|作成過程]]を、他言語への翻訳に貢献されたい場合は[[translations|翻訳]]をごらんください。<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align:right;">[[Definition/1.0|バージョン '''1.0''']]</div><br />
}}<br />
<!--<br />
{{divbox|1=gray|2=Stable version|3=This is the [[Definition/1.1|stable version '''1.1''']] 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 />
<div style="text-align:right;">[[Definition/1.0|version '''1.0''']]</div><br />
--><br />
<br />
== 要約 ==<br />
<br />
この文書は「自由文化作品」を定義したものです。自由文化作品とは、誰もが、どのような目的にでも<br />
自由に習作、活用、複製、または編集することのできる、作品や表現をさします。<br />
またこの文書ではこれらの基本的自由を尊重したり守るための、特定の許容可能な制限も述べてあります。<br />
この定義では「''自由作品''」と、作品が自由である状態を法的に保護するために用いることのできる<br />
''[[licenses|自由ライセンス]]''とを区別します。この文書による定義自体はライセンス''ではなく''、<br />
作品やライセンスが「自由」だと考えられるかどうかを判別するための道具です。<br />
<!--<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
--><br />
<br />
== 前文 ==<br />
社会と技術の発展により、さまざまな作品を「アクセス、創作、修正、出版、頒布」できる人たちが増加してきました。<br />
こういった作品は美術作品であったり、科学的、教育的素材であったり、ソフトウェアだったり、記事だったりします。端的に言えば「''デジタル形式で表されうる何か''」です。<br />
これらの新しい可能性を実践するコミュニティはいくつも形成され、再利用可能な作品の豊かな集まりが形成されてきました。<br />
<!--<br />
== Preamble ==<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 />
<br />
ほとんどの作者は、活動分野の違いこそあれ、またアマチュアであれプロフェッショナルであれ、<br />
作品が広まり、再利用され、創作的な手法で派生してゆく生態系にたいして、純粋な興味を持っています。<br />
作品の再利用と派生が容易になればそれだけ、私たちの文化がより豊かになります。<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 />
<br />
この生態系のすばらしい機能を確かなものとするため、著作者の作品は'''自由'''であるべきです。この「自由」を私たちは<br />
<br />
* 作品を'''利用する自由'''、そしてその作品を使うという便益を楽しむ自由<br />
* 作品を'''習作する自由'''、そしてその作品から得られる知識を応用する自由<br />
* 作品を'''複製し、再配布する自由'''、情報や表現の、全体でも一部でも<br />
* 作品に'''手を加え、改善する自由'''、そして派生作品を配布する自由<br />
<br />
の意味で用います。作者が行動を起こさないかぎり、作品には既存の著作権法が適用され、他者がそれについてできることとできないことが大幅に制限されます。ライセンスと呼ばれる多数の法的文書のうちから選択をすることによって、作者は自分の作品を自由にすることができます。作者にとって、自分の作品を''自由ライセンス''のもとに置くということは、自分の権利を失うことを意味しません。あらゆる人に上記の自由を与えるということを意味します。<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 />
If authors do not take action, their works are covered by existing copyright laws, which severely limit what others can and cannot do. Authors can make their works free by choosing among a number of legal documents known as licenses. For an author, choosing to put their work under a ''free license'' does not mean that they lose all their rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
--><br />
<br />
大事なのは、自由であると宣言されたあらゆる作品が、実質的にまたリスクなしで、上記の自由を提供しているということです。私たちがライセンスおよび作品に関する'''自由の定義'''を以下に精密に定めるのはそのためです。<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 />
<br />
== 自由文化作品の識別 ==<br />
<br />
これは''自由文化作品の定義''であり、あなたが作品を著すときには、この定義へ言及することをお奨めします。<br />
「これは''自由文化作品の定義''に示されるとおりの、自由にライセンスされる作品です」という具合です。<br />
「自由文化作品」という言葉がお気に召さなければ、より一般的な「フリーコンテンツ」という語を使うことも<br />
できますし、似たような自由をもっと具体的な文脈で表現する[[Existing Movements|既存の運動]]に<br />
代わりに言及しても良いでしょう。パブリックドメインになっている[[logos and buttons|ロゴとボタン]]を<br />
お使いになることもお勧めします。<br />
<br />
このような表明をしても、この定義に書かれているような権利は実際的には授けられないことにご留意ください。<br />
あなたの作品を本当に自由にしたいのであれば、自由文化[[Licenses|ライセンス]]の一つか、パブリック<br />
ドメインを用いなければなりません。<br />
<br />
自由文化作品を識別するのにあなたが他の語を使うのであれば、われわれは失望するでしょう。<br />
「オープンコンテンツ」や「オープンアクセス」といった類の言葉は、自由の定義を明確にしていません。<br />
こういった語は、既存の著作権法よりは「少し制限が緩い」条件で利用できることを表しているか、<br />
ただ単に「ウェブ上で利用可能」な作品を示すかに使われるのがほとんどです。<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 />
<br />
== 自由文化ライセンスの定義 ==<br />
<br />
ライセンスは、ある法的権利の所有者が、その権利を第三者に移転するための法的な道具です。<br />
自由文化ライセンスは、どのような権利も奪い去りません。それを受諾するか否かは<br />
常に選択でき、もしそれを受諾した場合、著作権法自体では提供されない自由を与えるものです。<br />
受諾したとき、著作権法にある既存の免除を制限したり、縮小したりはしません。<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 />
<br />
=== 基本的自由 ===<br />
この定義において「自由」とは何かが分かるようにするために、ライセンスは以下の自由を制限なしに<br />
許諾しなければなりません。<br />
<!--<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
--><br />
<br />
* '''作品を利用し、上演する自由:''' 私的と公的とに関わらず、ライセンスを受けるものは作品をどのような形であれ利用することを認められなければなりません。関連性のある作品であれば、この自由は上演や作品の翻訳といった、すべての派生利用(著作隣接権)を包含するはずです。政治的、宗教的配慮といったものを含めて、何らかの点での例外はありません。<br />
* '''作品を習作し、その情報を応用する自由:''' ライセンスを受けるものはどのような方法においても、作品を事細かに観察し、その作品から得られた知識を利用することを認められなければなりません。例えば、ライセンスは「リバースエンジニアリング」を禁じることはできません。<br />
* '''複製を頒布する自由:''' 複製を販売したり、交換したり、無償で配ったりすることができます。これはより大きな作品の一部としてであったり、コレクションであったり、作品単独であったりします。複製できる情報量に制限はありません。複製できる人が誰でも、複製元がどこからでも、制限はありません。<br />
* '''派生作品を頒布する自由:''' 作品をよりよくする才能を誰にでも与えるため、ライセンスは、その意図や目的とは関係なく、修正版(物理的な作品であれば、オリジナルから何らかの形で派生した作品)を頒布する自由を制限してはなりません。ただし、これらの基本的自由や作者への帰属を守るため何らかの制限が適用されることもあります(以下をご覧ください)。<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 />
<br />
=== 許可可能な制限 ===<br />
<br />
作品の使用・配布に対するすべての制限が基本的な自由を妨げるわけではありません。特に、著作人格権の表示、相互協力(例:「コピーレフト」)そして、基本的な自由を保護するための要求は許可可能な制限です。<br />
<!--<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
--><br />
<br />
== 自由文化作品の定義 ==<br />
<br />
ある作品が自由であると見なされるためには、その作品に自由文化ライセンスが付与されるか、その法的な状態が上記の「基本的な自由」を提供する'''必要'''があります。しかし、それだけでは十分とは言えません。実際に、ある作品は基本的な自由を阻害する他の理由によって非自由である可能性があります。ある作品が自由であると見なされるために必要な追加の条件を下記に記します:<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 />
<br />
* '''ソースデータの公開:''' 作品の完成版が一つのもしくは複数のソースファイルの編纂もしくは情報処理の結果として得られる場合、全ての関連するソースデータが作品と同様の条件で公開されるべきです。これは楽曲の楽譜、3D画像のモデル・ファイル、科学論文のデータで、ソフトウェアのソースコード、その他の該当する情報を含みます。<br />
* '''自由なファイル形式の使用:''' デジタル・ファイルの場合、作品が提供されているファイル形式は、世界中で無制限にかつ取消不可能な形で無償での利用が許可されている場合を除き、特許で保護されているべきではありません。作品が自由であると見なされるためには、非自由なファイル形式が利便性のために使用される場合でも、それに追加して自由なファイル形式が提供される'''必要'''があります。<br />
* '''技術的な制限の禁止:''' 技術的な処置によって、作品に関する上述の基本的な自由が制限されてはなりません。<br />
* '''追加の制限やその他の制約の禁止:''' 作品の基本的な自由が法的な制限(特許や契約など)やその他の制約(プライバシー権など)によって阻害されてはなりません。作品は既存の著作権の例外(著作権の付与されている作品を引用する事など)に頼ることはできますが、間違いなく自由である要素のみによって自由な作品は構成されます。<br />
<br />
言い換えれば、作品の利用者が法的もしくは実用的に基本的な自由を行使できない場合は、その作品は「自由」であるとは言えません。<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 />
<br />
== その他の読み物 ==<br />
<br />
* 個別のライセンスがこの定義に沿っているかという議論は[[license]]で見られます。<br />
* この定義の承認や背景に関する情報は[[history]]で見られます。<br />
* [[FAQ]]では幾つかの質問への回答を掲載しています。<br />
* [[Portal:Index]] で自由文化作品に関する個別のトピックのページ一覧が見られます。<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 />
<br />
== バージョン管理 ==<br />
<br />
この定義の新しいバージョンは、同意 ([[authoring process]]に従う形で直接得られたもの、もしくは投票の結果によって得られたもの)が提案された変更を巡って生じた場合に更新されます。番号付けは最初のドラフト・リリースでは0.x、メジャー・リリースでは1.x、2.x ..、マイナー・リリースではx.1、x.2 .. が使用されます。マイナー・リリースは、この定義に従う既存のもしくは仮定的なライセンスの範囲に影響を与えない変更が生じた場合に行われます。<br />
<!--<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.<br />
--><br />
__NOTOC__</div>
MaySoMusician
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Ja&diff=23724
Definition/Ja
2020-04-21T15:01:49Z
<p>MaySoMusician: Add original text for reference</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
{{divbox|1=gray|2=Stable version|3=これは[[Definition/1.1|安定版'''1.1''']]の定義です。このバージョン番号は定義が発展するにつれ更新されます。編集可能なバージョンは[[Definition/Unstable]]にあります。さらに詳しい情報は[[authoring process|作成過程]]を、他言語への翻訳に貢献されたい場合は[[translations|翻訳]]をごらんください。<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align:right;">[[Definition/1.0|バージョン '''1.0''']]</div><br />
}}<br />
<!--<br />
{{divbox|1=gray|2=Stable version|3=This is the [[Definition/1.1|stable version '''1.1''']] 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 />
<div style="text-align:right;">[[Definition/1.0|version '''1.0''']]</div><br />
--><br />
<br />
== 要約 ==<br />
<br />
この文書は「自由文化作品」を定義したものです。自由文化作品とは、誰もが、どのような目的にでも<br />
自由に習作、活用、複製、または編集することのできる、作品や表現をさします。<br />
またこの文書ではこれらの基本的自由を尊重したり守るための、特定の許容可能な制限も述べてあります。<br />
この定義では「''自由作品''」と、作品が自由である状態を法的に保護するために用いることのできる<br />
''[[licenses|自由ライセンス]]''とを区別します。この文書による定義自体はライセンス''ではなく''、<br />
作品やライセンスが「自由」だと考えられるかどうかを判別するための道具です。<br />
<!--<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
--><br />
<br />
== 前文 ==<br />
社会と技術の発展により、さまざまな作品を「アクセス、創作、修正、出版、頒布」できる人たちが増加してきました。<br />
こういった作品は美術作品であったり、科学的、教育的素材であったり、ソフトウェアだったり、記事だったりします。端的に言えば「''デジタル形式で表されうる何か''」です。<br />
これらの新しい可能性を実践するコミュニティはいくつも形成され、再利用可能な作品の豊かな集まりが形成されてきました。<br />
<!--<br />
== Preamble ==<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 />
<br />
ほとんどの作者は、活動分野の違いこそあれ、またアマチュアであれプロフェッショナルであれ、<br />
作品が広まり、再利用され、創作的な手法で派生してゆく生態系にたいして、純粋な興味を持っています。<br />
作品の再利用と派生が容易になればそれだけ、私たちの文化がより豊かになります。<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 />
<br />
この生態系のすばらしい機能を確かなものとするため、著作者の作品は'''自由'''であるべきです。<br />
この「自由」を私たちは<br />
<br />
* 作品を'''利用する自由'''、そしてその作品を使うという便益を楽しむ自由<br />
* 作品を'''習作する自由'''、そしてその作品から得られる知識を応用する自由<br />
* 作品を'''複製し、再配布する自由'''、情報や表現の、全体でも一部でも<br />
* 作品に'''手を加え、改善する自由'''、そして派生作品を配布する自由<br />
<br />
の意味で用います。作者が行動を起こさないかぎり、作品には既存の著作権法が適用され、他者がそれについてできることとできないことが大幅に制限されます。ライセンスと呼ばれる多数の法的文書のうちから選択をすることによって、作者は自分の作品を自由にすることができます。作者にとって、自分の作品を''自由ライセンス''のもとに置くということは、自分の権利を失うことを意味しません。あらゆる人に上記の自由を与えるということを意味します。<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 />
If authors do not take action, their works are covered by existing copyright laws, which severely limit what others can and cannot do. Authors can make their works free by choosing among a number of legal documents known as licenses. For an author, choosing to put their work under a ''free license'' does not mean that they lose all their rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
--><br />
<br />
大事なのは、自由であると宣言されたあらゆる作品が、実質的にまたリスクなしで、上記の自由を提供しているということです。私たちがライセンスおよび作品に関する「自由の定義」を以下に精密に定めるのはそのためです。<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 />
<br />
== 自由文化作品の識別 ==<br />
<br />
これは''自由文化作品の定義''であり、あなたが作品を著すときには、この定義へ言及することをお奨めします。<br />
「これは''自由文化作品の定義''に示されるとおりの、自由にライセンスされる作品です」という具合です。<br />
「自由文化作品」という言葉がお気に召さなければ、より一般的な「フリーコンテンツ」という語を使うことも<br />
できますし、似たような自由をもっと具体的な文脈で表現する[[Existing Movements|既存の運動]]に<br />
代わりに言及しても良いでしょう。パブリックドメインになっている[[logos and buttons|ロゴとボタン]]を<br />
お使いになることもお勧めします。<br />
<br />
このような表明をしても、この定義に書かれているような権利は実際的には授けられないことにご留意ください。<br />
あなたの作品を本当に自由にしたいのであれば、自由文化[[Licenses|ライセンス]]の一つか、パブリック<br />
ドメインを用いなければなりません。<br />
<br />
自由文化作品を識別するのにあなたが他の語を使うのであれば、われわれは失望するでしょう。<br />
「オープンコンテンツ」や「オープンアクセス」といった類の言葉は、自由の定義を明確にしていません。<br />
こういった語は、既存の著作権法よりは「少し制限が緩い」条件で利用できることを表しているか、<br />
ただ単に「ウェブ上で利用可能」な作品を示すかに使われるのがほとんどです。<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 />
<br />
== 自由文化ライセンスの定義 ==<br />
<br />
ライセンスは、ある法的権利の所有者が、その権利を第三者に移転するための法的な道具です。<br />
自由文化ライセンスは、どのような権利も奪い去りません。それを受諾するか否かは<br />
常に選択でき、もしそれを受諾した場合、著作権法自体では提供されない自由を与えるものです。<br />
受諾したとき、著作権法にある既存の免除を制限したり、縮小したりはしません。<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 />
<br />
=== 基本的自由 ===<br />
この定義において「自由」とは何かが分かるようにするために、ライセンスは以下の自由を制限なしに<br />
許諾しなければなりません。<br />
<!--<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
--><br />
<br />
* '''作品を利用し、上演する自由:''' 私的と公的とに関わらず、ライセンスを受けるものは作品をどのような形であれ利用することを認められなければなりません。関連性のある作品であれば、この自由は上演や作品の翻訳といった、すべての派生利用(著作隣接権)を包含するはずです。政治的、宗教的配慮といったものを含めて、何らかの点での例外はありません。<br />
* '''作品を習作し、その情報を応用する自由:''' ライセンスを受けるものはどのような方法においても、作品を事細かに観察し、その作品から得られた知識を利用することを認められなければなりません。例えば、ライセンスは「リバースエンジニアリング」を禁じることはできません。<br />
* '''複製を頒布する自由:''' 複製を販売したり、交換したり、無償で配ったりすることができます。これはより大きな作品の一部としてであったり、コレクションであったり、作品単独であったりします。複製できる情報量に制限はありません。複製できる人が誰でも、複製元がどこからでも、制限はありません。<br />
* '''派生作品を頒布する自由:''' 作品をよりよくする才能を誰にでも与えるため、ライセンスは、その意図や目的とは関係なく、修正版(物理的な作品であれば、オリジナルから何らかの形で派生した作品)を頒布する自由を制限してはなりません。ただし、これらの基本的自由や作者への帰属を守るため何らかの制限が適用されることもあります(以下をご覧ください)。<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 />
<br />
=== 許可可能な制限 ===<br />
<br />
作品の使用・配布に対するすべての制限が基本的な自由を妨げるわけではありません。特に、著作人格権の表示、相互協力(例:”コピーレフト”)そして、基本的な自由を保護するための要求は許可可能な制限です。<br />
<!--<br />
=== Permissible restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms. In particular, requirements for attribution, for symmetric collaboration (i.e., "copyleft"), and for the protection of essential freedom are considered [[permissible restrictions]].<br />
--><br />
<br />
== 自由文化作品の定義 ==<br />
<br />
ある作品が自由であると見なされるためには、その作品に自由文化ライセンスが付与されるか、その法的な状態が上記の「基本的な自由」を提供する'''必要'''があります。しかし、それだけでは十分とは言えません。実際に、ある作品は基本的な自由を阻害する他の理由によって非自由である可能性があります。ある作品が自由であると見なされるために必要な追加の条件を下記に記します:<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 />
<br />
* '''ソースデータの公開:''' 作品の完成版が一つのもしくは複数のソースファイルの編纂もしくは情報処理の結果として得られる場合、全ての関連するソースデータが作品と同様の条件で公開されるべきです。これは楽曲の楽譜、3D画像のモデル・ファイル、科学論文のデータで、ソフトウェアのソースコード、その他の該当する情報を含みます。<br />
* '''自由なファイル形式の使用:''' デジタル・ファイルの場合、作品が提供されているファイル形式は、世界中で無制限にかつ取消不可能な形で無償での利用が許可されている場合を除き、特許で保護されているべきではありません。作品が自由であると見なされるためには、非自由なファイル形式が利便性のために使用される場合でも、それに追加して自由なファイル形式が提供される'''必要'''があります。<br />
* '''技術的な制限の禁止:''' 技術的な処置によって、作品に関する上述の基本的な自由が制限されてはなりません。<br />
* '''追加の制限やその他の制約の禁止:''' 作品の基本的な自由が法的な制限(特許や契約など)やその他の制約(プライバシー権など)によって阻害されてはなりません。作品は既存の著作権の例外(著作権の付与されている作品を引用する事など)に頼ることはできますが、間違いなく自由である要素のみによって自由な作品は構成されます。<br />
<br />
言い換えれば、作品の利用者が法的もしくは実用的に基本的な自由を行使できない場合は、その作品は"自由"であるとは言えません。<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 />
<br />
== その他の読み物 ==<br />
<br />
* 個別のライセンスがこの定義に沿っているかという議論は[[license]]で見られます。<br />
* この定義の承認や背景に関する情報は[[history]]で見られます。<br />
* [[FAQ]]では幾つかの質問への回答を掲載しています。<br />
* [[Portal:Index]] で自由文化作品に関する個別のトピックのページ一覧が見られます。<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 />
<br />
== バージョン管理 ==<br />
<br />
この定義の新しいバージョンは、同意 ([[authoring process]]に従う形で直接得られたもの、もしくは投票の結果によって得られたもの)が提案された変更を巡って生じた場合に更新されます。番号付けは最初のドラフト・リリースでは0.x、メジャー・リリースでは1.x、2.x ..、マイナー・リリースではx.1、x.2 .. が使用されます。マイナー・リリースは、この定義に従う既存のもしくは仮定的なライセンスの範囲に影響を与えない変更が生じた場合に行われます。<br />
<!--<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.<br />
--><br />
__NOTOC__</div>
MaySoMusician
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Ja&diff=23723
Definition/Ja
2020-04-21T14:59:49Z
<p>MaySoMusician: /* 前文 */ Delete paragraph outdated in ver 1.1</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
{{divbox|1=gray|2=Stable version|3=これは[[Definition/1.1|安定版'''1.1''']]の定義です。このバージョン番号は定義が発展するにつれ更新されます。編集可能なバージョンは[[Definition/Unstable]]にあります。さらに詳しい情報は[[authoring process|作成過程]]を、他言語への翻訳に貢献されたい場合は[[translations|翻訳]]をごらんください。<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align:right;">[[Definition/1.0|バージョン '''1.0''']]</div><br />
}}<br />
<!--<br />
{{divbox|1=gray|2=Stable version|3=This is the [[Definition/1.1|stable version '''1.1''']] 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 />
<div style="text-align:right;">[[Definition/1.0|version '''1.0''']]</div><br />
--><br />
<br />
== 要約 ==<br />
<br />
この文書は「自由文化作品」を定義したものです。自由文化作品とは、誰もが、どのような目的にでも<br />
自由に習作、活用、複製、または編集することのできる、作品や表現をさします。<br />
またこの文書ではこれらの基本的自由を尊重したり守るための、特定の許容可能な制限も述べてあります。<br />
この定義では「''自由作品''」と、作品が自由である状態を法的に保護するために用いることのできる<br />
''[[licenses|自由ライセンス]]''とを区別します。この文書による定義自体はライセンス''ではなく''、<br />
作品やライセンスが「自由」だと考えられるかどうかを判別するための道具です。<br />
<!--<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
--><br />
<br />
== 前文 ==<br />
社会と技術の発展により、さまざまな作品を「アクセス、創作、修正、出版、頒布」できる人たちが増加してきました。<br />
こういった作品は美術作品であったり、科学的、教育的素材であったり、ソフトウェアだったり、記事だったりします。端的に言えば「''デジタル形式で表されうる何か''」です。<br />
これらの新しい可能性を実践するコミュニティはいくつも形成され、再利用可能な作品の豊かな集まりが形成されてきました。<br />
<!--<br />
== Preamble ==<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 />
<br />
ほとんどの作者は、活動分野の違いこそあれ、またアマチュアであれプロフェッショナルであれ、<br />
作品が広まり、再利用され、創作的な手法で派生してゆく生態系にたいして、純粋な興味を持っています。<br />
作品の再利用と派生が容易になればそれだけ、私たちの文化がより豊かになります。<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 />
<br />
この生態系のすばらしい機能を確かなものとするため、著作者の作品は'''自由'''であるべきです。<br />
この「自由」を私たちは<br />
<br />
* 作品を'''利用する自由'''、そしてその作品を使うという便益を楽しむ自由<br />
* 作品を'''習作する自由'''、そしてその作品から得られる知識を応用する自由<br />
* 作品を'''複製し、再配布する自由'''、情報や表現の、全体でも一部でも<br />
* 作品に'''手を加え、改善する自由'''、そして派生作品を配布する自由<br />
<br />
の意味で用います。作者が行動を起こさないかぎり、作品には既存の著作権法が適用され、他者がそれについてできることとできないことが大幅に制限されます。ライセンスと呼ばれる多数の法的文書のうちから選択をすることによって、作者は自分の作品を自由にすることができます。作者にとって、自分の作品を''自由ライセンス''のもとに置くということは、自分の権利を失うことを意味しません。あらゆる人に上記の自由を与えるということを意味します。<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 />
If authors do not take action, their works are covered by existing copyright laws, which severely limit what others can and cannot do. Authors can make their works free by choosing among a number of legal documents known as licenses. For an author, choosing to put their work under a ''free license'' does not mean that they lose all their rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
--><br />
<br />
大事なのは、自由であると宣言されたあらゆる作品が、実質的にまたリスクなしで、上記の自由を提供しているということです。私たちがライセンスおよび作品に関する「自由の定義」を以下に精密に定めるのはそのためです。<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 />
<br />
== 自由文化作品の識別 ==<br />
<br />
これは''自由文化作品の定義''であり、あなたが作品を著すときには、この定義へ言及することをお奨めします。<br />
「これは''自由文化作品の定義''に示されるとおりの、自由にライセンスされる作品です」という具合です。<br />
「自由文化作品」という言葉がお気に召さなければ、より一般的な「フリーコンテンツ」という語を使うことも<br />
できますし、似たような自由をもっと具体的な文脈で表現する[[Existing Movements|既存の運動]]に<br />
代わりに言及しても良いでしょう。パブリックドメインになっている[[logos and buttons|ロゴとボタン]]を<br />
お使いになることもお勧めします。<br />
<br />
このような表明をしても、この定義に書かれているような権利は実際的には授けられないことにご留意ください。<br />
あなたの作品を本当に自由にしたいのであれば、自由文化[[Licenses|ライセンス]]の一つか、パブリック<br />
ドメインを用いなければなりません。<br />
<br />
自由文化作品を識別するのにあなたが他の語を使うのであれば、われわれは失望するでしょう。<br />
「オープンコンテンツ」や「オープンアクセス」といった類の言葉は、自由の定義を明確にしていません。<br />
こういった語は、既存の著作権法よりは「少し制限が緩い」条件で利用できることを表しているか、<br />
ただ単に「ウェブ上で利用可能」な作品を示すかに使われるのがほとんどです。<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 />
<br />
== 自由文化ライセンスの定義 ==<br />
<br />
ライセンスは、ある法的権利の所有者が、その権利を第三者に移転するための法的な道具です。<br />
自由文化ライセンスは、どのような権利も奪い去りません。それを受諾するか否かは<br />
常に選択でき、もしそれを受諾した場合、著作権法自体では提供されない自由を与えるものです。<br />
受諾したとき、著作権法にある既存の免除を制限したり、縮小したりはしません。<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 />
<br />
=== 基本的自由 ===<br />
この定義において「自由」とは何かが分かるようにするために、ライセンスは以下の自由を制限なしに<br />
許諾しなければなりません。<br />
<!--<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
--><br />
<br />
* '''作品を利用し、上演する自由:''' 私的と公的とに関わらず、ライセンスを受けるものは作品をどのような形であれ利用することを認められなければなりません。関連性のある作品であれば、この自由は上演や作品の翻訳といった、すべての派生利用(著作隣接権)を包含するはずです。政治的、宗教的配慮といったものを含めて、何らかの点での例外はありません。<br />
* '''作品を習作し、その情報を応用する自由:''' ライセンスを受けるものはどのような方法においても、作品を事細かに観察し、その作品から得られた知識を利用することを認められなければなりません。例えば、ライセンスは「リバースエンジニアリング」を禁じることはできません。<br />
* '''複製を頒布する自由:''' 複製を販売したり、交換したり、無償で配ったりすることができます。これはより大きな作品の一部としてであったり、コレクションであったり、作品単独であったりします。複製できる情報量に制限はありません。複製できる人が誰でも、複製元がどこからでも、制限はありません。<br />
* '''派生作品を頒布する自由:''' 作品をよりよくする才能を誰にでも与えるため、ライセンスは、その意図や目的とは関係なく、修正版(物理的な作品であれば、オリジナルから何らかの形で派生した作品)を頒布する自由を制限してはなりません。ただし、これらの基本的自由や作者への帰属を守るため何らかの制限が適用されることもあります(以下をご覧ください)。<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 />
<br />
=== 許可可能な制限 ===<br />
<br />
作品の使用・配布に対するすべての制限が基本的な自由を妨げるわけではありません。特に、著作人格権の表示、相互協力(例:”コピーレフト”)そして、基本的な自由を保護するための要求は許可可能な制限です。<br />
<br />
== 自由文化作品の定義 ==<br />
<br />
ある作品が自由であると見なされるためには、その作品に自由文化ライセンスが付与されるか、その法的な状態が上記の「基本的な自由」を提供する'''必要'''があります。しかし、それだけでは十分とは言えません。実際に、ある作品は基本的な自由を阻害する他の理由によって非自由である可能性があります。ある作品が自由であると見なされるために必要な追加の条件を下記に記します:<br />
<br />
* '''ソースデータの公開:''' 作品の完成版が一つのもしくは複数のソースファイルの編纂もしくは情報処理の結果として得られる場合、全ての関連するソースデータが作品と同様の条件で公開されるべきです。これは楽曲の楽譜、3D画像のモデル・ファイル、科学論文のデータで、ソフトウェアのソースコード、その他の該当する情報を含みます。<br />
* '''自由なファイル形式の使用:''' デジタル・ファイルの場合、作品が提供されているファイル形式は、世界中で無制限にかつ取消不可能な形で無償での利用が許可されている場合を除き、特許で保護されているべきではありません。作品が自由であると見なされるためには、非自由なファイル形式が利便性のために使用される場合でも、それに追加して自由なファイル形式が提供される'''必要'''があります。<br />
* '''技術的な制限の禁止:''' 技術的な処置によって、作品に関する上述の基本的な自由が制限されてはなりません。<br />
* '''追加の制限やその他の制約の禁止:''' 作品の基本的な自由が法的な制限(特許や契約など)やその他の制約(プライバシー権など)によって阻害されてはなりません。作品は既存の著作権の例外(著作権の付与されている作品を引用する事など)に頼ることはできますが、間違いなく自由である要素のみによって自由な作品は構成されます。<br />
<br />
言い換えれば、作品の利用者が法的もしくは実用的に基本的な自由を行使できない場合は、その作品は"自由"であるとは言えません。<br />
<br />
== その他の読み物 ==<br />
<br />
* 個別のライセンスがこの定義に沿っているかという議論は[[license]]で見られます。<br />
* この定義の承認や背景に関する情報は[[history]]で見られます。<br />
* [[FAQ]]では幾つかの質問への回答を掲載しています。<br />
* [[Portal:Index]] で自由文化作品に関する個別のトピックのページ一覧が見られます。<br />
<br />
== バージョン管理 ==<br />
<br />
この定義の新しいバージョンは、同意 ([[authoring process]]に従う形で直接得られたもの、もしくは投票の結果によって得られたもの)が提案された変更を巡って生じた場合に更新されます。番号付けは最初のドラフト・リリースでは0.x、メジャー・リリースでは1.x、2.x ..、マイナー・リリースではx.1、x.2 .. が使用されます。マイナー・リリースは、この定義に従う既存のもしくは仮定的なライセンスの範囲に影響を与えない変更が生じた場合に行われます。<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__</div>
MaySoMusician
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Ja&diff=23722
Definition/Ja
2020-04-21T14:58:56Z
<p>MaySoMusician: Revert changing order (revision 23720) by MaySoMusician (talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
{{divbox|1=gray|2=Stable version|3=これは[[Definition/1.1|安定版'''1.1''']]の定義です。このバージョン番号は定義が発展するにつれ更新されます。編集可能なバージョンは[[Definition/Unstable]]にあります。さらに詳しい情報は[[authoring process|作成過程]]を、他言語への翻訳に貢献されたい場合は[[translations|翻訳]]をごらんください。<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align:right;">[[Definition/1.0|バージョン '''1.0''']]</div><br />
}}<br />
<!--<br />
{{divbox|1=gray|2=Stable version|3=This is the [[Definition/1.1|stable version '''1.1''']] 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 />
<div style="text-align:right;">[[Definition/1.0|version '''1.0''']]</div><br />
--><br />
<br />
== 要約 ==<br />
<br />
この文書は「自由文化作品」を定義したものです。自由文化作品とは、誰もが、どのような目的にでも<br />
自由に習作、活用、複製、または編集することのできる、作品や表現をさします。<br />
またこの文書ではこれらの基本的自由を尊重したり守るための、特定の許容可能な制限も述べてあります。<br />
この定義では「''自由作品''」と、作品が自由である状態を法的に保護するために用いることのできる<br />
''[[licenses|自由ライセンス]]''とを区別します。この文書による定義自体はライセンス''ではなく''、<br />
作品やライセンスが「自由」だと考えられるかどうかを判別するための道具です。<br />
<!--<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
--><br />
<br />
== 前文 ==<br />
社会と技術の発展により、さまざまな作品を「アクセス、創作、修正、出版、頒布」できる人たちが増加してきました。<br />
こういった作品は美術作品であったり、科学的、教育的素材であったり、ソフトウェアだったり、記事だったりします。端的に言えば「''デジタル形式で表されうる何か''」です。<br />
これらの新しい可能性を実践するコミュニティはいくつも形成され、再利用可能な作品の豊かな集まりが形成されてきました。<br />
<!--<br />
== Preamble ==<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 />
<br />
ほとんどの作者は、活動分野の違いこそあれ、またアマチュアであれプロフェッショナルであれ、<br />
作品が広まり、再利用され、創作的な手法で派生してゆく生態系にたいして、純粋な興味を持っています。<br />
作品の再利用と派生が容易になればそれだけ、私たちの文化がより豊かになります。<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 />
<br />
この生態系のすばらしい機能を確かなものとするため、著作者の作品は'''自由'''であるべきです。<br />
この「自由」を私たちは<br />
<br />
* 作品を'''利用する自由'''、そしてその作品を使うという便益を楽しむ自由<br />
* 作品を'''習作する自由'''、そしてその作品から得られる知識を応用する自由<br />
* 作品を'''複製し、再配布する自由'''、情報や表現の、全体でも一部でも<br />
* 作品に'''手を加え、改善する自由'''、そして派生作品を配布する自由<br />
<br />
の意味で用います。作者が行動を起こさないかぎり、作品には既存の著作権法が適用され、他者がそれについてできることとできないことが大幅に制限されます。ライセンスと呼ばれる多数の法的文書のうちから選択をすることによって、作者は自分の作品を自由にすることができます。作者にとって、自分の作品を''自由ライセンス''のもとに置くということは、自分の権利を失うことを意味しません。あらゆる人に上記の自由を与えるということを意味します。<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 />
If authors do not take action, their works are covered by existing copyright laws, which severely limit what others can and cannot do. Authors can make their works free by choosing among a number of legal documents known as licenses. For an author, choosing to put their work under a ''free license'' does not mean that they lose all their rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
--><br />
<br />
しかしながらほとんどの国ではこの自由は強制されていないばかりか、一般に「著作権法」という名の<br />
法律によって抑圧されています。作者を神のごとき創造者とみなし、「かれらのコンテンツ」の<br />
再利用可能性については排他的独占権を与えます。<br />
この独占は文化の繁栄を妨げるばかりでなく、作者の経済状況の助けにはあまりなりません。<br />
それどころか最も権力のある出版社のビジネスモデルを守ります。<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 />
<br />
大事なのは、自由であると宣言されたあらゆる作品が、実質的にまたリスクなしで、上記の自由を提供しているということです。私たちがライセンスおよび作品に関する「自由の定義」を以下に精密に定めるのはそのためです。<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 />
<br />
== 自由文化作品の識別 ==<br />
<br />
これは''自由文化作品の定義''であり、あなたが作品を著すときには、この定義へ言及することをお奨めします。<br />
「これは''自由文化作品の定義''に示されるとおりの、自由にライセンスされる作品です」という具合です。<br />
「自由文化作品」という言葉がお気に召さなければ、より一般的な「フリーコンテンツ」という語を使うことも<br />
できますし、似たような自由をもっと具体的な文脈で表現する[[Existing Movements|既存の運動]]に<br />
代わりに言及しても良いでしょう。パブリックドメインになっている[[logos and buttons|ロゴとボタン]]を<br />
お使いになることもお勧めします。<br />
<br />
このような表明をしても、この定義に書かれているような権利は実際的には授けられないことにご留意ください。<br />
あなたの作品を本当に自由にしたいのであれば、自由文化[[Licenses|ライセンス]]の一つか、パブリック<br />
ドメインを用いなければなりません。<br />
<br />
自由文化作品を識別するのにあなたが他の語を使うのであれば、われわれは失望するでしょう。<br />
「オープンコンテンツ」や「オープンアクセス」といった類の言葉は、自由の定義を明確にしていません。<br />
こういった語は、既存の著作権法よりは「少し制限が緩い」条件で利用できることを表しているか、<br />
ただ単に「ウェブ上で利用可能」な作品を示すかに使われるのがほとんどです。<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 />
<br />
== 自由文化ライセンスの定義 ==<br />
<br />
ライセンスは、ある法的権利の所有者が、その権利を第三者に移転するための法的な道具です。<br />
自由文化ライセンスは、どのような権利も奪い去りません。それを受諾するか否かは<br />
常に選択でき、もしそれを受諾した場合、著作権法自体では提供されない自由を与えるものです。<br />
受諾したとき、著作権法にある既存の免除を制限したり、縮小したりはしません。<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 />
<br />
=== 基本的自由 ===<br />
この定義において「自由」とは何かが分かるようにするために、ライセンスは以下の自由を制限なしに<br />
許諾しなければなりません。<br />
<!--<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
--><br />
<br />
* '''作品を利用し、上演する自由:''' 私的と公的とに関わらず、ライセンスを受けるものは作品をどのような形であれ利用することを認められなければなりません。関連性のある作品であれば、この自由は上演や作品の翻訳といった、すべての派生利用(著作隣接権)を包含するはずです。政治的、宗教的配慮といったものを含めて、何らかの点での例外はありません。<br />
* '''作品を習作し、その情報を応用する自由:''' ライセンスを受けるものはどのような方法においても、作品を事細かに観察し、その作品から得られた知識を利用することを認められなければなりません。例えば、ライセンスは「リバースエンジニアリング」を禁じることはできません。<br />
* '''複製を頒布する自由:''' 複製を販売したり、交換したり、無償で配ったりすることができます。これはより大きな作品の一部としてであったり、コレクションであったり、作品単独であったりします。複製できる情報量に制限はありません。複製できる人が誰でも、複製元がどこからでも、制限はありません。<br />
* '''派生作品を頒布する自由:''' 作品をよりよくする才能を誰にでも与えるため、ライセンスは、その意図や目的とは関係なく、修正版(物理的な作品であれば、オリジナルから何らかの形で派生した作品)を頒布する自由を制限してはなりません。ただし、これらの基本的自由や作者への帰属を守るため何らかの制限が適用されることもあります(以下をご覧ください)。<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 />
<br />
=== 許可可能な制限 ===<br />
<br />
作品の使用・配布に対するすべての制限が基本的な自由を妨げるわけではありません。特に、著作人格権の表示、相互協力(例:”コピーレフト”)そして、基本的な自由を保護するための要求は許可可能な制限です。<br />
<br />
== 自由文化作品の定義 ==<br />
<br />
ある作品が自由であると見なされるためには、その作品に自由文化ライセンスが付与されるか、その法的な状態が上記の「基本的な自由」を提供する'''必要'''があります。しかし、それだけでは十分とは言えません。実際に、ある作品は基本的な自由を阻害する他の理由によって非自由である可能性があります。ある作品が自由であると見なされるために必要な追加の条件を下記に記します:<br />
<br />
* '''ソースデータの公開:''' 作品の完成版が一つのもしくは複数のソースファイルの編纂もしくは情報処理の結果として得られる場合、全ての関連するソースデータが作品と同様の条件で公開されるべきです。これは楽曲の楽譜、3D画像のモデル・ファイル、科学論文のデータで、ソフトウェアのソースコード、その他の該当する情報を含みます。<br />
* '''自由なファイル形式の使用:''' デジタル・ファイルの場合、作品が提供されているファイル形式は、世界中で無制限にかつ取消不可能な形で無償での利用が許可されている場合を除き、特許で保護されているべきではありません。作品が自由であると見なされるためには、非自由なファイル形式が利便性のために使用される場合でも、それに追加して自由なファイル形式が提供される'''必要'''があります。<br />
* '''技術的な制限の禁止:''' 技術的な処置によって、作品に関する上述の基本的な自由が制限されてはなりません。<br />
* '''追加の制限やその他の制約の禁止:''' 作品の基本的な自由が法的な制限(特許や契約など)やその他の制約(プライバシー権など)によって阻害されてはなりません。作品は既存の著作権の例外(著作権の付与されている作品を引用する事など)に頼ることはできますが、間違いなく自由である要素のみによって自由な作品は構成されます。<br />
<br />
言い換えれば、作品の利用者が法的もしくは実用的に基本的な自由を行使できない場合は、その作品は"自由"であるとは言えません。<br />
<br />
== その他の読み物 ==<br />
<br />
* 個別のライセンスがこの定義に沿っているかという議論は[[license]]で見られます。<br />
* この定義の承認や背景に関する情報は[[history]]で見られます。<br />
* [[FAQ]]では幾つかの質問への回答を掲載しています。<br />
* [[Portal:Index]] で自由文化作品に関する個別のトピックのページ一覧が見られます。<br />
<br />
== バージョン管理 ==<br />
<br />
この定義の新しいバージョンは、同意 ([[authoring process]]に従う形で直接得られたもの、もしくは投票の結果によって得られたもの)が提案された変更を巡って生じた場合に更新されます。番号付けは最初のドラフト・リリースでは0.x、メジャー・リリースでは1.x、2.x ..、マイナー・リリースではx.1、x.2 .. が使用されます。マイナー・リリースは、この定義に従う既存のもしくは仮定的なライセンスの範囲に影響を与えない変更が生じた場合に行われます。<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__</div>
MaySoMusician
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Ja&diff=23721
Definition/Ja
2020-04-21T14:53:30Z
<p>MaySoMusician: Update information box on the top of the page to ver 1.1</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
<!--<br />
{{divbox|1=gray|2=Stable version|3=This is the [[Definition/1.1|stable version '''1.1''']] 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 />
<div style="text-align:right;">[[Definition/1.0|version '''1.0''']]</div><br />
--><br />
{{divbox|1=gray|2=Stable version|3=これは[[Definition/1.1|安定版'''1.1''']]の定義です。このバージョン番号は定義が発展するにつれ更新されます。編集可能なバージョンは[[Definition/Unstable]]にあります。さらに詳しい情報は[[authoring process|作成過程]]を、他言語への翻訳に貢献されたい場合は[[translations|翻訳]]をごらんください。<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align:right;">[[Definition/1.0|バージョン '''1.0''']]</div><br />
}}<br />
<br />
<!--<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
--><br />
== 要約 ==<br />
<br />
この文書は「自由文化作品」を定義したものです。自由文化作品とは、誰もが、どのような目的にでも<br />
自由に習作、活用、複製、または編集することのできる、作品や表現をさします。<br />
またこの文書ではこれらの基本的自由を尊重したり守るための、特定の許容可能な制限も述べてあります。<br />
この定義では「''自由作品''」と、作品が自由である状態を法的に保護するために用いることのできる<br />
''[[licenses|自由ライセンス]]''とを区別します。この文書による定義自体はライセンス''ではなく''、<br />
作品やライセンスが「自由」だと考えられるかどうかを判別するための道具です。<br />
<br />
<!--<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
--><br />
== 前文 ==<br />
社会と技術の発展により、さまざまな作品を「アクセス、創作、修正、出版、頒布」できる人たちが増加してきました。<br />
こういった作品は美術作品であったり、科学的、教育的素材であったり、ソフトウェアだったり、記事だったりします。端的に言えば「''デジタル形式で表されうる何か''」です。<br />
これらの新しい可能性を実践するコミュニティはいくつも形成され、再利用可能な作品の豊かな集まりが形成されてきました。<br />
<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 />
ほとんどの作者は、活動分野の違いこそあれ、またアマチュアであれプロフェッショナルであれ、<br />
作品が広まり、再利用され、創作的な手法で派生してゆく生態系にたいして、純粋な興味を持っています。<br />
作品の再利用と派生が容易になればそれだけ、私たちの文化がより豊かになります。<br />
<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 />
If authors do not take action, their works are covered by existing copyright laws, which severely limit what others can and cannot do. Authors can make their works free by choosing among a number of legal documents known as licenses. For an author, choosing to put their work under a ''free license'' does not mean that they lose all their rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
--><br />
この生態系のすばらしい機能を確かなものとするため、著作者の作品は'''自由'''であるべきです。<br />
この「自由」を私たちは<br />
<br />
* 作品を'''利用する自由'''、そしてその作品を使うという便益を楽しむ自由<br />
* 作品を'''習作する自由'''、そしてその作品から得られる知識を応用する自由<br />
* 作品を'''複製し、再配布する自由'''、情報や表現の、全体でも一部でも<br />
* 作品に'''手を加え、改善する自由'''、そして派生作品を配布する自由<br />
<br />
の意味で用います。作者が行動を起こさないかぎり、作品には既存の著作権法が適用され、他者がそれについてできることとできないことが大幅に制限されます。ライセンスと呼ばれる多数の法的文書のうちから選択をすることによって、作者は自分の作品を自由にすることができます。作者にとって、自分の作品を''自由ライセンス''のもとに置くということは、自分の権利を失うことを意味しません。あらゆる人に上記の自由を与えるということを意味します。<br />
<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 />
しかしながらほとんどの国ではこの自由は強制されていないばかりか、一般に「著作権法」という名の<br />
法律によって抑圧されています。作者を神のごとき創造者とみなし、「かれらのコンテンツ」の<br />
再利用可能性については排他的独占権を与えます。<br />
この独占は文化の繁栄を妨げるばかりでなく、作者の経済状況の助けにはあまりなりません。<br />
それどころか最も権力のある出版社のビジネスモデルを守ります。<br />
<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 />
大事なのは、自由であると宣言されたあらゆる作品が、実質的にまたリスクなしで、上記の自由を提供しているということです。私たちがライセンスおよび作品に関する「自由の定義」を以下に精密に定めるのはそのためです。<br />
<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 />
== 自由文化作品の識別 ==<br />
<br />
これは''自由文化作品の定義''であり、あなたが作品を著すときには、この定義へ言及することをお奨めします。<br />
「これは''自由文化作品の定義''に示されるとおりの、自由にライセンスされる作品です」という具合です。<br />
「自由文化作品」という言葉がお気に召さなければ、より一般的な「フリーコンテンツ」という語を使うことも<br />
できますし、似たような自由をもっと具体的な文脈で表現する[[Existing Movements|既存の運動]]に<br />
代わりに言及しても良いでしょう。パブリックドメインになっている[[logos and buttons|ロゴとボタン]]を<br />
お使いになることもお勧めします。<br />
<br />
このような表明をしても、この定義に書かれているような権利は実際的には授けられないことにご留意ください。<br />
あなたの作品を本当に自由にしたいのであれば、自由文化[[Licenses|ライセンス]]の一つか、パブリック<br />
ドメインを用いなければなりません。<br />
<br />
自由文化作品を識別するのにあなたが他の語を使うのであれば、われわれは失望するでしょう。<br />
「オープンコンテンツ」や「オープンアクセス」といった類の言葉は、自由の定義を明確にしていません。<br />
こういった語は、既存の著作権法よりは「少し制限が緩い」条件で利用できることを表しているか、<br />
ただ単に「ウェブ上で利用可能」な作品を示すかに使われるのがほとんどです。<br />
<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 />
== 自由文化ライセンスの定義 ==<br />
<br />
ライセンスは、ある法的権利の所有者が、その権利を第三者に移転するための法的な道具です。<br />
自由文化ライセンスは、どのような権利も奪い去りません。それを受諾するか否かは<br />
常に選択でき、もしそれを受諾した場合、著作権法自体では提供されない自由を与えるものです。<br />
受諾したとき、著作権法にある既存の免除を制限したり、縮小したりはしません。<br />
<br />
<!--<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
--><br />
=== 基本的自由 ===<br />
この定義において「自由」とは何かが分かるようにするために、ライセンスは以下の自由を制限なしに<br />
許諾しなければなりません。<br />
<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 />
* '''作品を利用し、上演する自由:''' 私的と公的とに関わらず、ライセンスを受けるものは作品をどのような形であれ利用することを認められなければなりません。関連性のある作品であれば、この自由は上演や作品の翻訳といった、すべての派生利用(著作隣接権)を包含するはずです。政治的、宗教的配慮といったものを含めて、何らかの点での例外はありません。<br />
* '''作品を習作し、その情報を応用する自由:''' ライセンスを受けるものはどのような方法においても、作品を事細かに観察し、その作品から得られた知識を利用することを認められなければなりません。例えば、ライセンスは「リバースエンジニアリング」を禁じることはできません。<br />
* '''複製を頒布する自由:''' 複製を販売したり、交換したり、無償で配ったりすることができます。これはより大きな作品の一部としてであったり、コレクションであったり、作品単独であったりします。複製できる情報量に制限はありません。複製できる人が誰でも、複製元がどこからでも、制限はありません。<br />
* '''派生作品を頒布する自由:''' 作品をよりよくする才能を誰にでも与えるため、ライセンスは、その意図や目的とは関係なく、修正版(物理的な作品であれば、オリジナルから何らかの形で派生した作品)を頒布する自由を制限してはなりません。ただし、これらの基本的自由や作者への帰属を守るため何らかの制限が適用されることもあります(以下をご覧ください)。<br />
<br />
=== 許可可能な制限 ===<br />
<br />
作品の使用・配布に対するすべての制限が基本的な自由を妨げるわけではありません。特に、著作人格権の表示、相互協力(例:”コピーレフト”)そして、基本的な自由を保護するための要求は許可可能な制限です。<br />
<br />
== 自由文化作品の定義 ==<br />
<br />
ある作品が自由であると見なされるためには、その作品に自由文化ライセンスが付与されるか、その法的な状態が上記の「基本的な自由」を提供する'''必要'''があります。しかし、それだけでは十分とは言えません。実際に、ある作品は基本的な自由を阻害する他の理由によって非自由である可能性があります。ある作品が自由であると見なされるために必要な追加の条件を下記に記します:<br />
<br />
* '''ソースデータの公開:''' 作品の完成版が一つのもしくは複数のソースファイルの編纂もしくは情報処理の結果として得られる場合、全ての関連するソースデータが作品と同様の条件で公開されるべきです。これは楽曲の楽譜、3D画像のモデル・ファイル、科学論文のデータで、ソフトウェアのソースコード、その他の該当する情報を含みます。<br />
* '''自由なファイル形式の使用:''' デジタル・ファイルの場合、作品が提供されているファイル形式は、世界中で無制限にかつ取消不可能な形で無償での利用が許可されている場合を除き、特許で保護されているべきではありません。作品が自由であると見なされるためには、非自由なファイル形式が利便性のために使用される場合でも、それに追加して自由なファイル形式が提供される'''必要'''があります。<br />
* '''技術的な制限の禁止:''' 技術的な処置によって、作品に関する上述の基本的な自由が制限されてはなりません。<br />
* '''追加の制限やその他の制約の禁止:''' 作品の基本的な自由が法的な制限(特許や契約など)やその他の制約(プライバシー権など)によって阻害されてはなりません。作品は既存の著作権の例外(著作権の付与されている作品を引用する事など)に頼ることはできますが、間違いなく自由である要素のみによって自由な作品は構成されます。<br />
<br />
言い換えれば、作品の利用者が法的もしくは実用的に基本的な自由を行使できない場合は、その作品は"自由"であるとは言えません。<br />
<br />
== その他の読み物 ==<br />
<br />
* 個別のライセンスがこの定義に沿っているかという議論は[[license]]で見られます。<br />
* この定義の承認や背景に関する情報は[[history]]で見られます。<br />
* [[FAQ]]では幾つかの質問への回答を掲載しています。<br />
* [[Portal:Index]] で自由文化作品に関する個別のトピックのページ一覧が見られます。<br />
<br />
== バージョン管理 ==<br />
<br />
この定義の新しいバージョンは、同意 ([[authoring process]]に従う形で直接得られたもの、もしくは投票の結果によって得られたもの)が提案された変更を巡って生じた場合に更新されます。番号付けは最初のドラフト・リリースでは0.x、メジャー・リリースでは1.x、2.x ..、マイナー・リリースではx.1、x.2 .. が使用されます。マイナー・リリースは、この定義に従う既存のもしくは仮定的なライセンスの範囲に影響を与えない変更が生じた場合に行われます。<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__</div>
MaySoMusician
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Ja&diff=23720
Definition/Ja
2020-04-21T14:45:57Z
<p>MaySoMusician: Change orders of original text and translation</p>
<hr />
<div>{{definition-langs}}<br />
<br />
<!--<br />
{{divbox|gray|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 />
{{divbox|gray|安定版|これは定義の'''1.0'''安定版です。このバージョン番号は定義が発展するにつれ更新されます。編集可能なバージョンは[[Definition/Unstable]]にあります。さらに詳しい情報は[[authoring process|作成過程]]を、他言語への翻訳に貢献されたい場合は[[translations|翻訳]]をごらんください。<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<!--<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between ''free works'', and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."<br />
--><br />
== 要約 ==<br />
<br />
この文書は「自由文化作品」を定義したものです。自由文化作品とは、誰もが、どのような目的にでも<br />
自由に習作、活用、複製、または編集することのできる、作品や表現をさします。<br />
またこの文書ではこれらの基本的自由を尊重したり守るための、特定の許容可能な制限も述べてあります。<br />
この定義では「''自由作品''」と、作品が自由である状態を法的に保護するために用いることのできる<br />
''[[licenses|自由ライセンス]]''とを区別します。この文書による定義自体はライセンス''ではなく''、<br />
作品やライセンスが「自由」だと考えられるかどうかを判別するための道具です。<br />
<br />
<!--<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to ''access, create, modify, publish and distribute'' various kinds of works - artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: ''anything that can be represented in digital form''. Many communities have formed to exercise those new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively re-usable works.<br />
--><br />
== 前文 ==<br />
社会と技術の発展により、さまざまな作品を「アクセス、創作、修正、出版、頒布」できる人たちが増加してきました。<br />
こういった作品は美術作品であったり、科学的、教育的素材であったり、ソフトウェアだったり、記事だったりします。端的に言えば「''デジタル形式で表されうる何か''」です。<br />
これらの新しい可能性を実践するコミュニティはいくつも形成され、再利用可能な作品の豊かな集まりが形成されてきました。<br />
<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 />
ほとんどの作者は、活動分野の違いこそあれ、またアマチュアであれプロフェッショナルであれ、<br />
作品が広まり、再利用され、創作的な手法で派生してゆく生態系にたいして、純粋な興味を持っています。<br />
作品の再利用と派生が容易になればそれだけ、私たちの文化がより豊かになります。<br />
<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 />
If authors do not take action, their works are covered by existing copyright laws, which severely limit what others can and cannot do. Authors can make their works free by choosing among a number of legal documents known as licenses. For an author, choosing to put their work under a ''free license'' does not mean that they lose all their rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above.<br />
--><br />
この生態系のすばらしい機能を確かなものとするため、著作者の作品は'''自由'''であるべきです。<br />
この「自由」を私たちは<br />
<br />
* 作品を'''利用する自由'''、そしてその作品を使うという便益を楽しむ自由<br />
* 作品を'''習作する自由'''、そしてその作品から得られる知識を応用する自由<br />
* 作品を'''複製し、再配布する自由'''、情報や表現の、全体でも一部でも<br />
* 作品に'''手を加え、改善する自由'''、そして派生作品を配布する自由<br />
<br />
の意味で用います。作者が行動を起こさないかぎり、作品には既存の著作権法が適用され、他者がそれについてできることとできないことが大幅に制限されます。ライセンスと呼ばれる多数の法的文書のうちから選択をすることによって、作者は自分の作品を自由にすることができます。作者にとって、自分の作品を''自由ライセンス''のもとに置くということは、自分の権利を失うことを意味しません。あらゆる人に上記の自由を与えるということを意味します。<br />
<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 />
しかしながらほとんどの国ではこの自由は強制されていないばかりか、一般に「著作権法」という名の<br />
法律によって抑圧されています。作者を神のごとき創造者とみなし、「かれらのコンテンツ」の<br />
再利用可能性については排他的独占権を与えます。<br />
この独占は文化の繁栄を妨げるばかりでなく、作者の経済状況の助けにはあまりなりません。<br />
それどころか最も権力のある出版社のビジネスモデルを守ります。<br />
<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 />
大事なのは、自由であると宣言されたあらゆる作品が、実質的にまたリスクなしで、上記の自由を提供しているということです。私たちがライセンスおよび作品に関する「自由の定義」を以下に精密に定めるのはそのためです。<br />
<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 />
== 自由文化作品の識別 ==<br />
<br />
これは''自由文化作品の定義''であり、あなたが作品を著すときには、この定義へ言及することをお奨めします。<br />
「これは''自由文化作品の定義''に示されるとおりの、自由にライセンスされる作品です」という具合です。<br />
「自由文化作品」という言葉がお気に召さなければ、より一般的な「フリーコンテンツ」という語を使うことも<br />
できますし、似たような自由をもっと具体的な文脈で表現する[[Existing Movements|既存の運動]]に<br />
代わりに言及しても良いでしょう。パブリックドメインになっている[[logos and buttons|ロゴとボタン]]を<br />
お使いになることもお勧めします。<br />
<br />
このような表明をしても、この定義に書かれているような権利は実際的には授けられないことにご留意ください。<br />
あなたの作品を本当に自由にしたいのであれば、自由文化[[Licenses|ライセンス]]の一つか、パブリック<br />
ドメインを用いなければなりません。<br />
<br />
自由文化作品を識別するのにあなたが他の語を使うのであれば、われわれは失望するでしょう。<br />
「オープンコンテンツ」や「オープンアクセス」といった類の言葉は、自由の定義を明確にしていません。<br />
こういった語は、既存の著作権法よりは「少し制限が緩い」条件で利用できることを表しているか、<br />
ただ単に「ウェブ上で利用可能」な作品を示すかに使われるのがほとんどです。<br />
<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 />
== 自由文化ライセンスの定義 ==<br />
<br />
ライセンスは、ある法的権利の所有者が、その権利を第三者に移転するための法的な道具です。<br />
自由文化ライセンスは、どのような権利も奪い去りません。それを受諾するか否かは<br />
常に選択でき、もしそれを受諾した場合、著作権法自体では提供されない自由を与えるものです。<br />
受諾したとき、著作権法にある既存の免除を制限したり、縮小したりはしません。<br />
<br />
<!--<br />
=== Essential freedoms ===<br />
In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:<br />
--><br />
=== 基本的自由 ===<br />
この定義において「自由」とは何かが分かるようにするために、ライセンスは以下の自由を制限なしに<br />
許諾しなければなりません。<br />
<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 />
* '''作品を利用し、上演する自由:''' 私的と公的とに関わらず、ライセンスを受けるものは作品をどのような形であれ利用することを認められなければなりません。関連性のある作品であれば、この自由は上演や作品の翻訳といった、すべての派生利用(著作隣接権)を包含するはずです。政治的、宗教的配慮といったものを含めて、何らかの点での例外はありません。<br />
* '''作品を習作し、その情報を応用する自由:''' ライセンスを受けるものはどのような方法においても、作品を事細かに観察し、その作品から得られた知識を利用することを認められなければなりません。例えば、ライセンスは「リバースエンジニアリング」を禁じることはできません。<br />
* '''複製を頒布する自由:''' 複製を販売したり、交換したり、無償で配ったりすることができます。これはより大きな作品の一部としてであったり、コレクションであったり、作品単独であったりします。複製できる情報量に制限はありません。複製できる人が誰でも、複製元がどこからでも、制限はありません。<br />
* '''派生作品を頒布する自由:''' 作品をよりよくする才能を誰にでも与えるため、ライセンスは、その意図や目的とは関係なく、修正版(物理的な作品であれば、オリジナルから何らかの形で派生した作品)を頒布する自由を制限してはなりません。ただし、これらの基本的自由や作者への帰属を守るため何らかの制限が適用されることもあります(以下をご覧ください)。<br />
<br />
=== 許可可能な制限 ===<br />
<br />
作品の使用・配布に対するすべての制限が基本的な自由を妨げるわけではありません。特に、著作人格権の表示、相互協力(例:”コピーレフト”)そして、基本的な自由を保護するための要求は許可可能な制限です。<br />
<br />
== 自由文化作品の定義 ==<br />
<br />
ある作品が自由であると見なされるためには、その作品に自由文化ライセンスが付与されるか、その法的な状態が上記の「基本的な自由」を提供する'''必要'''があります。しかし、それだけでは十分とは言えません。実際に、ある作品は基本的な自由を阻害する他の理由によって非自由である可能性があります。ある作品が自由であると見なされるために必要な追加の条件を下記に記します:<br />
<br />
* '''ソースデータの公開:''' 作品の完成版が一つのもしくは複数のソースファイルの編纂もしくは情報処理の結果として得られる場合、全ての関連するソースデータが作品と同様の条件で公開されるべきです。これは楽曲の楽譜、3D画像のモデル・ファイル、科学論文のデータで、ソフトウェアのソースコード、その他の該当する情報を含みます。<br />
* '''自由なファイル形式の使用:''' デジタル・ファイルの場合、作品が提供されているファイル形式は、世界中で無制限にかつ取消不可能な形で無償での利用が許可されている場合を除き、特許で保護されているべきではありません。作品が自由であると見なされるためには、非自由なファイル形式が利便性のために使用される場合でも、それに追加して自由なファイル形式が提供される'''必要'''があります。<br />
* '''技術的な制限の禁止:''' 技術的な処置によって、作品に関する上述の基本的な自由が制限されてはなりません。<br />
* '''追加の制限やその他の制約の禁止:''' 作品の基本的な自由が法的な制限(特許や契約など)やその他の制約(プライバシー権など)によって阻害されてはなりません。作品は既存の著作権の例外(著作権の付与されている作品を引用する事など)に頼ることはできますが、間違いなく自由である要素のみによって自由な作品は構成されます。<br />
<br />
言い換えれば、作品の利用者が法的もしくは実用的に基本的な自由を行使できない場合は、その作品は"自由"であるとは言えません。<br />
<br />
== その他の読み物 ==<br />
<br />
* 個別のライセンスがこの定義に沿っているかという議論は[[license]]で見られます。<br />
* この定義の承認や背景に関する情報は[[history]]で見られます。<br />
* [[FAQ]]では幾つかの質問への回答を掲載しています。<br />
* [[Portal:Index]] で自由文化作品に関する個別のトピックのページ一覧が見られます。<br />
<br />
== バージョン管理 ==<br />
<br />
この定義の新しいバージョンは、同意 ([[authoring process]]に従う形で直接得られたもの、もしくは投票の結果によって得られたもの)が提案された変更を巡って生じた場合に更新されます。番号付けは最初のドラフト・リリースでは0.x、メジャー・リリースでは1.x、2.x ..、マイナー・リリースではx.1、x.2 .. が使用されます。マイナー・リリースは、この定義に従う既存のもしくは仮定的なライセンスの範囲に影響を与えない変更が生じた場合に行われます。<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__</div>
MaySoMusician
https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Portal:Index&diff=23719
Portal:Index
2020-04-21T14:38:34Z
<p>MaySoMusician: Undo revision 23712 by 107.77.232.34 (talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{portals}}<br />
'''Portals''' are ways for groups of like-minded individuals to join and describe the principles of the [[definition]] in their own words, to collect resources, and to discuss. Be creative in editing -- they don't have to appeal to anyone but the group of people they are meant for. You are free to link to non-free resources which you think should be free, but be sure to emphasize the distinction.<br />
<br />
* [[Portal:Free Culture Soapbox]]<br />
* [[Portal:News]]<br />
* [[Portal:Open media]] which allow Free Cultural Works to be spread!<br />
* [[Portal:Science]]<br />
* [[Portal:Music]]<br />
* [[Portal:Theatre]]<br />
* [[Portal:Software]]<br />
* [[Portal:Movies]]<br />
* [[Portal:Comics]]<br />
* [[Portal:Role-playing games]]<br />
* [[Portal:Art]]<br />
* [[Portal:Educational Materials]]<br />
* [[Portal:Novels]]<br />
* [[Portal:Poetry]]<br />
* [[Portal:Videogames content]]<br />
* [[Portal:Food]]</div>
MaySoMusician