https://freedomdefined.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=STELLAR.ECLIPSE&feedformat=atomDefinition of Free Cultural Works - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T09:27:20ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.38.4https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Existing_Movements&diff=14534Existing Movements2012-11-09T07:33:29Z<p>STELLAR.ECLIPSE: /* Free Software */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Free Art==<br />
<br />
There is no Free Art Definition, but the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] is in the spirit of this definition.<br />
<br />
==Free Software==<br />
<br />
Cf. the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definition].<br />
*Downloading<br />
*Receiveing<br />
*Marketing<br />
<br />
==Internet Engineering Task Force==<br />
<br />
The [http://ietf.org/ Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)], which is the body governing the drafting and evolution of Internet protocols - without which the Internet, an unified interconnection of physically disparate networks, couldn't even exist -, has [http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html rules] concerning the rights that are granted on its published documents. Although a [http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html#derivs subtle restriction] on derivative works makes some of these documents not completely free, it is a good example of how Free Content's essential freedoms can be fruitfully applied to promote scientific and technical progress.<br />
<br />
==Open Knowledge==<br />
<br />
Cf. the [http://www.okfn.org/okd/definition.html Open Knowledge Definition].<br />
<br />
==Open Source==<br />
<br />
Cf. the [http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Open Source Definition], but note the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html philosophical differences] to the Free Software movement; also note that the term is, in spite of its definition, somewhat diluted, especially in contexts other than software.<br />
<br />
==Free/Libre Knowledge==<br />
<br />
[http://wikieducator.org/Libre_knowledge Libre Knowledge] is championed by [http://www.libre.org Libre.org] and others such as the [http://freeknowledge.eu/ Free Knowledge Institute].</div>STELLAR.ECLIPSEhttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=14533Definition/Unstable2012-11-09T07:28:40Z<p>STELLAR.ECLIPSE: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
----<br />
This document provides a definition of "Free Cultural Works" [the Definition], which are roughly works or expressions that can be freely studied, applied, copied and modified, by anyone and for any purpose. The Definition distinguishes between ''free works'' and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free." This document also describes restrictions that respect or protect the freedoms of Free Cultural Works.<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
'''Free Cultural Works''' are works which anyone can <br />
* '''Use'''<br />
* '''Study''' <br />
* '''Copy'''<br />
* '''Change and Improve'''<br />
* '''Improve"'<br />
<br />
'''Free Culture Licenses''' are legal instruments by which copyright owners grant users these freedoms and make their works into Free Cultural Works.<br />
<br />
In addition to the 4 freedoms listed above '''Free Cultural licenses''' will not include certain restrictions. include:<br />
* '''Attribution''' - acknowledge other authors<br />
* '''Share-alike''' or '''Copyleft'''- derived works must be licensed under the same or different or compatible license as the original<br />
* '''Protection of Freedoms''' - the license may require additional permissions or information is distributed with the works (such as source code, design drawings, musical scores, access codes) where these are needed to create new versions of the work.<br />
* '''Due Credit''' Give credit where credit is due. If it's not your work do not claim it as yours.<br />
allow freedom of speech. Do not copy others work through vocabulary or written without verbally saying the artist or writer who first created the idea if it was not their own idea.<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Since the earliest humans appeared on planet earth they have drawn, painted, sang, carved, weaved, danced, recited, built, studied. These cultural works have been passed down from parent to child, from master to apprentice ever since, each taking the works of those that went before and passing it on to those who came after; each adding and improving and polishing and translating what they received so that human culture could grow and develop.<br />
<br />
Since Science has been based on an explicit philosophy of sharing information, with all scientists expected to publish and any scientist free to repeat any experiment, we have seen an unprecedented explosion of scientific knowledge.<br />
<br />
In recent years social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to share cultural works that can be represented in digital form with other people they have never met in person. These works include artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, stories, audio and video recordings. Many communities have formed to exercise these new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively reusable works. As these collaboratively produced works grow in commercial value there is ever greater pressure to monetise these works, to erect toll gates so that the community who collaborated to create these works can be charged to access them.<br />
<br />
At different time over the years Copyright and Patent legislation has been introduced as a way of restricting and taxing that free flow of information - as a way of rewarding particularly innovative new contributions or favoured supporters of the government of the time. These laws have been used to create the tollgates mentioned above.<br />
<br />
'''Free Culture licenses''' have been created to provide a legal framework which reflects these collaborative working practices, providing a simple way for people to share with others the rights needed for such collaborations to happen, so that users can collaborate and work together to create and improve '''Free Culture Works''' and ensure that these works stay free.<br />
<br />
==Free Cultural Works==<br />
Free Cultural Works are works where<br />
* '''anyone''', i.e. rich or poor, socialist or fascist, man, woman or corporation;<br />
* '''anywhere''', i.e. worldwide;<br />
* '''anytime''', i.e. unlimited and irrevocable and forever.<br />
has each of the following freedoms<br />
====The freedom to use and perform the work====<br />
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 or commercial considerations.<br />
<br />
====The freedom to study the work and apply the information====<br />
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 />
====The freedom to redistribute copies====<br />
whether they are sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. Neither may there be a limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied. The license may not, for example, forbid "Commercial' exploitation of the work.<br />
<br />
====The freedom to distribute derivative works====<br />
including modified versions (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications.<br />
<br />
== Permissible restrictions==<br />
There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we feel do not impede the essential freedom in our definition. These restrictions can therefore be included in Free Culture licenses. They are described below.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution of authors ===<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
In addition to the requirement for attribution the license may include restrictions to ensure the original author is not seen to be responsible for changes to the work made by others. This may include restrictions on the use of trademarks.<br />
<br />
=== Transmission of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
<br />
The license may include a clause, often called ''copyleft'' or ''share-alike'', which ensures that derivative works themselves remain free works. To this effect, it can for example require that derivative works are made available under the same free license as the original.<br />
<br />
The license may restrict the redistribution of the work as part of a compilation with other works unless the other other works are under the same license or are under another free license.<br />
<br />
The license may require that where the work is used to provide a service over the internet then users of the service will have rights under the license, such as the right to access, copy, amend and redistribute the source code for software.<br />
<br />
=== Protection of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
The license may include clauses that strive to further ensure that the ability to exercise the freedoms listed above is not restricted by technical or other means. These can include:<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of design information or a source file or multiple source files, the license may require that 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 drawings and parts list of a machine, or any other such information.<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the license may require that the format in which the work is made available should not be one that can only be read using a particular manufacturers program. Formats should be documented and should not be restricted by patents, unless these patents are licensed for use in free works. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy means that the information will be accessible to everyone, for ever.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The license may require that 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 license may specify that it may not be used to distribute works which are covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights or being for non-commercial use only) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. This can mean that if you agree to pay a patent holder for the right to use a program then you can lose the right to distribute that program (since you have acknowledged that you think the patent applies to the programme). This is sometimes known as a '''Liberty or Death''' clause and makes it more dificult for owners of weak patents to divide the users by offering deals to some users under the threat of a costly lawsuit.<br />
<br />
===No other restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Apart from these allowed restrictions, the license ''must not'' include clauses that limit essential freedoms. See [[Permissible restrictions]]<br />
<br />
== Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms.<br />
<br />
All new works are automatically covered by existing copyright laws which default to All Rights Reserved. All Rights Reserved considerably limit what others can and cannot do with the work. Authors can make their works free by choosing among a number of legal documents known as licenses which grant users the 4 freedoms listed above. <br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take rights away — they specify freedoms that are not included in a default copyright license such as All Rights Reserved. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing user rights and exemptions under copyright law. Because the grant rights which are additional to the rights users have under copyright therefore users are not required to accept the license unless they want to exercise those additional rights.<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 ''[http://freedomdefined.org Definition of Free Cultural Works]''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be actually free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain, or equivalent of.<br />
<br />
Please don't use other terms to identify Cultural Works; terms which do not convey a clear definition of freedom; terms such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than All Rights Reserved, or for works that are just "available on the Web", but they don't necessarily carry with them the freedoms referred to in this document.<br />
<br />
== Availability of legal instruments ==<br />
''Can'' in ''anyone can use, study, copy, change and improve'' ([[Definition/Unstable#Summary|summary]]) means anyone can realistically make his case in court that such freedom was granted. It implies that where a work is made free by way of a free cultural license, the legal instrument, by which the copyright or other right owner grants the license, must also be available to anyone in the legal form that is legally binding in the relevant legal context. The legal instrument should not be jealously and secretly kept by the first licensee.<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
* See [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_knowledge Wikipedia on Free/Libre Knowledge]<br />
* See [http://ictlogy.net/?p=12#fourkinds The Four Kinds of Freedom of Free Knowledge]<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__</div>STELLAR.ECLIPSEhttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=14532Talk:Definition/Unstable2012-11-09T07:22:18Z<p>STELLAR.ECLIPSE: /* Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|action=edit&section=new}} Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments until January 3, 2010]<br />
<br />
----<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==NEW ORDER WE NEEDthis Machine it is STABLE and SMART and IS GOING IN THE DIRECTION AS US!<br />
<br />
== [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits ==<br />
<br />
For what it's worth, I agree with [[User:Mormegil]] and his [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12071&oldid=12070 recent revert]. I don't understand what problem [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12044&oldid=12024 the edits in question] are trying to solve. Perhaps if they are explained them here, we can talk about it. —<b>[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#C40099">m</font><font color="#600099">a</font><font color="#2D0399">k</font><font color="#362365">o</font>]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#000000">๛</font>]]</b> 19:41, 26 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Suppressing copyleft ==<br />
<br />
In re 171.226.171.169’s ''I am trying to delist GFDL, GPL, LGPL, CC-BY-SA and other copyleft licenses'': While I can understand (and, for a part, agree with) the opinion that copyleft licenses are not “free”, I have to point out that this would be an ''extreme'' change of the definition. Note that this definition originates at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation, which use copyleft licenses extensively (the whole body of Wikipedia text is licensed under CC-BY-SA, for start), and which use the Definition as the [[wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy|criterion of acceptability]]. Changing the Definition so as to exclude copyleft would mean the whole Wikipedia contents would be against its own rules.<br />
<br />
I just can’t imagine the definition could change so radically (without becoming a completely different definition). An alternate definition is possible, but would be exactly that – ''alternate'', not just a new version of this.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'd think that CC-BY-SA and LGPL may be free, but GFDL and GPL are '''obviously''' non-free. Because you can include CC-BY-SA or LGPL works as part of works distributed under other licenses, but you cannot do the same thing with GPL and GFDL works. This is also why Wikipedia has moved from GFDL to GFDL + CC-BY-SA.<br />
Section 5 "Combining Documents" of the GFDL:<br />
:You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.<br />
<br />
:The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.<br />
<br />
:In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements".<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/171.226.97.137|171.226.97.137]] 07:56, 31 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Maybe I don’t understand your specific point, but AFAICT you ''cannot'' generally combine a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA] work with a work under an other license, or, more specifically, when you combine a CC-BY-SA work with another work, the result must be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well. That is the same copyleft as in GFDL/GPL. On the other hand, LGPL allows you to combine an LGPL work (usually, a library) with another work (usually, an application), and distribute the result under any license. You cannot do that with CC-BY-SA, that is what the “share-alike” (-SA) tag is all about. On the other hand, [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC-BY] is a non-copyleft license which would allow that (but it is not the license Wikipedia uses). --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 11:52, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: True, GPL might allow less freedoms than for instance the MIT license. However that does not necesserily make GPL a non-free license. If you define a ''free license'' as the license with the most freedoms, then even the MIT/BSD/... licenses would have to be considered non-free, then only public domain could be considered truly free. However as there already is a definition for the public domain, the whole project of "Definition of Free Cultural Works" would not make sense then. Of course, the problem remains as of how broad you would want the Definition of Free Cultural Works to be. But from looking at the previous versions, the idea and intention of Definition of Free Cultural Works seems to have been to cover copyleft licenses as well, as they do not harm the main idea and purpose of Free Content. As [[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] said before, excluding copyleft licenses is a completely different definition. Maybe you are more looking for http://copyfree.org/standard/ instead? --[[User:T X|T X]] 14:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Definition of "Can" missing ==<br />
<br />
"Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can use, study, copy, change and improve..." -> Tribes in a lot of countries don't have computers - and therefore ''can't'' use the MIT/GPL/... licensed software I wrote. So my work is not a Free Cultural Work? (I guess such a conclusion is not intended)<br />
<br />
Maybe a definition for certain words, like "can", "may", ... should be added. Similiarly as keywords were specified for IETF's Internet Standards / RFCs (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). --[[User:T X|T X]] 13:37, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
In a similar vein, "should" is used a lot where some might argue for "must" (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt ) ([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006433.html idea from]). - [[User:KTucker|K]] 17:48, 12 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
*Operate<br />
*Teach<br />
*Train<br />
<br />
==Libre==<br />
<br />
Please make it clear that this would also be the "[[Libre|libre cultural works]]" definition. <br />
:: The libre knowledge definition is completely compatible as far as I can tell. It appears in some form on the following pages: [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_Knowledge Libre knowledge on Wikipedia] and [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say libre]. i.e. at some key point state that free means "libre"/"free as in freedom" - perhaps as simply as writing free/libre at least once near the beginning. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:37, 3 March 2012 (EST)<br />
:: I have created a parallel "libre" version - [[Libre|Libre Cultural Works Definition]] - but would prefer this not to be necessary. Discuss this issue right here or on the libre version's [[Talk:Libre|discussion page]] - Thanks - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free-Libre-Open Hardware Definition ==<br />
<br />
Hello, I'm starting a "friendly fork" of the OSHW Definition here because, currently engaged in writing a free/libre/open hardware project proposal to a set of potential clients who are not at all familiar with the whole genre of free/libre/open approaches, I feel the current OSHW Definition is not concise enough to just reproduce as an excerpt. I also feel the current OSHW Definition risks the same division between "open source" methods and "free" ethics that has complicated relations for years within the free/libre/open source software community. <br />
<br />
Back in 2004 while preparing a presentation deck for my Director General in government, I needed to cram the OSI definition into a single screen: http://www.goslingcommunity.org/gtec2004.shtml In the end I felt the short version I had adapted was more useful as a definition than the original, in the same sense that dictionaries also hold to very concise phrases. Over the years too, I came to see the importance of including both the methods and ethics elements into projects. <br />
<br />
So what appears here as a "fork" to facilitate discussion is the current draft text that appears in my own free/libre/open hardware document. <br />
<br />
''DRAFT: '' http://freedomdefined.org/User:Jpotvin/Free-Libre-Open_Hardware_Definition<br />
<br />
I hope nobody is offended by this thorough change. Putting it up as a fork here just seemed to best way to discuss it without interfering with your main definition text.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
<br />
Joseph Potvin<br />
<br />
Business Partner?<br />
<br />
== Stellar.Eclipse ==<br />
<br />
Intuitive Mathmatic and educated in Science.</div>STELLAR.ECLIPSEhttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=14531Talk:Definition/Unstable2012-11-09T07:15:33Z<p>STELLAR.ECLIPSE: /* allow passage for freedom activist */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|action=edit&section=new}} Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments until January 3, 2010]<br />
<br />
----<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==NEW ORDER WE NEEDthis Machine it is STABLE and SMART and IS GOING IN THE DIRECTION AS US!<br />
<br />
== [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits ==<br />
<br />
For what it's worth, I agree with [[User:Mormegil]] and his [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12071&oldid=12070 recent revert]. I don't understand what problem [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12044&oldid=12024 the edits in question] are trying to solve. Perhaps if they are explained them here, we can talk about it. —<b>[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#C40099">m</font><font color="#600099">a</font><font color="#2D0399">k</font><font color="#362365">o</font>]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#000000">๛</font>]]</b> 19:41, 26 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Suppressing copyleft ==<br />
<br />
In re 171.226.171.169’s ''I am trying to delist GFDL, GPL, LGPL, CC-BY-SA and other copyleft licenses'': While I can understand (and, for a part, agree with) the opinion that copyleft licenses are not “free”, I have to point out that this would be an ''extreme'' change of the definition. Note that this definition originates at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation, which use copyleft licenses extensively (the whole body of Wikipedia text is licensed under CC-BY-SA, for start), and which use the Definition as the [[wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy|criterion of acceptability]]. Changing the Definition so as to exclude copyleft would mean the whole Wikipedia contents would be against its own rules.<br />
<br />
I just can’t imagine the definition could change so radically (without becoming a completely different definition). An alternate definition is possible, but would be exactly that – ''alternate'', not just a new version of this.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'd think that CC-BY-SA and LGPL may be free, but GFDL and GPL are '''obviously''' non-free. Because you can include CC-BY-SA or LGPL works as part of works distributed under other licenses, but you cannot do the same thing with GPL and GFDL works. This is also why Wikipedia has moved from GFDL to GFDL + CC-BY-SA.<br />
Section 5 "Combining Documents" of the GFDL:<br />
:You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.<br />
<br />
:The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.<br />
<br />
:In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements".<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/171.226.97.137|171.226.97.137]] 07:56, 31 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Maybe I don’t understand your specific point, but AFAICT you ''cannot'' generally combine a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA] work with a work under an other license, or, more specifically, when you combine a CC-BY-SA work with another work, the result must be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well. That is the same copyleft as in GFDL/GPL. On the other hand, LGPL allows you to combine an LGPL work (usually, a library) with another work (usually, an application), and distribute the result under any license. You cannot do that with CC-BY-SA, that is what the “share-alike” (-SA) tag is all about. On the other hand, [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC-BY] is a non-copyleft license which would allow that (but it is not the license Wikipedia uses). --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 11:52, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: True, GPL might allow less freedoms than for instance the MIT license. However that does not necesserily make GPL a non-free license. If you define a ''free license'' as the license with the most freedoms, then even the MIT/BSD/... licenses would have to be considered non-free, then only public domain could be considered truly free. However as there already is a definition for the public domain, the whole project of "Definition of Free Cultural Works" would not make sense then. Of course, the problem remains as of how broad you would want the Definition of Free Cultural Works to be. But from looking at the previous versions, the idea and intention of Definition of Free Cultural Works seems to have been to cover copyleft licenses as well, as they do not harm the main idea and purpose of Free Content. As [[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] said before, excluding copyleft licenses is a completely different definition. Maybe you are more looking for http://copyfree.org/standard/ instead? --[[User:T X|T X]] 14:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Definition of "Can" missing ==<br />
<br />
"Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can use, study, copy, change and improve..." -> Tribes in a lot of countries don't have computers - and therefore ''can't'' use the MIT/GPL/... licensed software I wrote. So my work is not a Free Cultural Work? (I guess such a conclusion is not intended)<br />
<br />
Maybe a definition for certain words, like "can", "may", ... should be added. Similiarly as keywords were specified for IETF's Internet Standards / RFCs (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). --[[User:T X|T X]] 13:37, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
In a similar vein, "should" is used a lot where some might argue for "must" (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt ) ([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006433.html idea from]). - [[User:KTucker|K]] 17:48, 12 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' ==<br />
<br />
Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can<br />
* Use<br />
* Study<br />
* Copy<br />
* Change and Improve <br />
<br />
I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four freedoms:<br />
<br />
* 'Study' is a form of 'Use': It's just a more specific form of usage - which, agreed, a lot of EULAs and laws try to exclude.<br />
* 'Distribution' should be added: If you were only looking at these four freedoms, even some content which you get via an NDA might fit these points. You can use, study and even copy the work for your own needs, you may change and improve it - however you won't be allowed to share any of these things afterwards.<br />
<br />
<br />
Therefore my suggestion, making more a whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality:<br />
<br />
* Use and Study<br />
* Copy and Distribute<br />
* Change and Improve<br />
<br />
So that the second verb of each freedom is actually a more specific form of the first verb of each freedom. The purpose of the second verb is to better reflect the true, good intent of the more neutral, more generic action defined in the first verb of a freedom, and to place some emphasize on this good intent, the idea behind it.<br />
<br />
(I'm not quite sure whether I'd prefer the word 'distribute' or 'share'. Maybe a native English speaker could give some insight on what (s)he thinks the differing connotations might be.) --[[User:T X|T X]] 04:25, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: The libre knowledge definition puts it this way:<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable" width="50%" <br />
|<br />
Users of libre knowledge are free to<br />
<br />
:(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
:(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
:(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
:(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
::i.e. "study" is about being able to adapt/modify - use (0) and adapt (1) to ''help yourself'', "copy" (2) is about sharing to ''help your neighbour'', and the last freedom (3) is to clarify that you can also share your modified versions (to ''help the community'').<br />
<br />
::Personally, I prefer to retain the link with the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] as does the [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge libre knowledge definition]. Knowledge and cultural resources cannot be regarded as free if they cannot be accessed and modified with libre software. Consistency is important. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:12, 12 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Libre==<br />
<br />
Please make it clear that this would also be the "[[Libre|libre cultural works]]" definition. <br />
:: The libre knowledge definition is completely compatible as far as I can tell. It appears in some form on the following pages: [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_Knowledge Libre knowledge on Wikipedia] and [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say libre]. i.e. at some key point state that free means "libre"/"free as in freedom" - perhaps as simply as writing free/libre at least once near the beginning. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:37, 3 March 2012 (EST)<br />
:: I have created a parallel "libre" version - [[Libre|Libre Cultural Works Definition]] - but would prefer this not to be necessary. Discuss this issue right here or on the libre version's [[Talk:Libre|discussion page]] - Thanks - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free-Libre-Open Hardware Definition ==<br />
<br />
Hello, I'm starting a "friendly fork" of the OSHW Definition here because, currently engaged in writing a free/libre/open hardware project proposal to a set of potential clients who are not at all familiar with the whole genre of free/libre/open approaches, I feel the current OSHW Definition is not concise enough to just reproduce as an excerpt. I also feel the current OSHW Definition risks the same division between "open source" methods and "free" ethics that has complicated relations for years within the free/libre/open source software community. <br />
<br />
Back in 2004 while preparing a presentation deck for my Director General in government, I needed to cram the OSI definition into a single screen: http://www.goslingcommunity.org/gtec2004.shtml In the end I felt the short version I had adapted was more useful as a definition than the original, in the same sense that dictionaries also hold to very concise phrases. Over the years too, I came to see the importance of including both the methods and ethics elements into projects. <br />
<br />
So what appears here as a "fork" to facilitate discussion is the current draft text that appears in my own free/libre/open hardware document. <br />
<br />
''DRAFT: '' http://freedomdefined.org/User:Jpotvin/Free-Libre-Open_Hardware_Definition<br />
<br />
I hope nobody is offended by this thorough change. Putting it up as a fork here just seemed to best way to discuss it without interfering with your main definition text.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
<br />
Joseph Potvin<br />
<br />
Business Partner?<br />
<br />
== Stellar.Eclipse ==<br />
<br />
Intuitive Mathmatic and educated in Science.</div>STELLAR.ECLIPSEhttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=14530Talk:Definition/Unstable2012-11-09T07:13:14Z<p>STELLAR.ECLIPSE: /* Stellar.Eclipse */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|action=edit&section=new}} Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments until January 3, 2010]<br />
<br />
----<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==NEW ORDER WE NEEDthis Machine it is STABLE and SMART and IS GOING IN THE DIRECTION AS US!<br />
<br />
== [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits ==<br />
<br />
For what it's worth, I agree with [[User:Mormegil]] and his [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12071&oldid=12070 recent revert]. I don't understand what problem [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12044&oldid=12024 the edits in question] are trying to solve. Perhaps if they are explained them here, we can talk about it. —<b>[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#C40099">m</font><font color="#600099">a</font><font color="#2D0399">k</font><font color="#362365">o</font>]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#000000">๛</font>]]</b> 19:41, 26 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Suppressing copyleft ==<br />
<br />
In re 171.226.171.169’s ''I am trying to delist GFDL, GPL, LGPL, CC-BY-SA and other copyleft licenses'': While I can understand (and, for a part, agree with) the opinion that copyleft licenses are not “free”, I have to point out that this would be an ''extreme'' change of the definition. Note that this definition originates at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation, which use copyleft licenses extensively (the whole body of Wikipedia text is licensed under CC-BY-SA, for start), and which use the Definition as the [[wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy|criterion of acceptability]]. Changing the Definition so as to exclude copyleft would mean the whole Wikipedia contents would be against its own rules.<br />
<br />
I just can’t imagine the definition could change so radically (without becoming a completely different definition). An alternate definition is possible, but would be exactly that – ''alternate'', not just a new version of this.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'd think that CC-BY-SA and LGPL may be free, but GFDL and GPL are '''obviously''' non-free. Because you can include CC-BY-SA or LGPL works as part of works distributed under other licenses, but you cannot do the same thing with GPL and GFDL works. This is also why Wikipedia has moved from GFDL to GFDL + CC-BY-SA.<br />
Section 5 "Combining Documents" of the GFDL:<br />
:You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.<br />
<br />
:The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.<br />
<br />
:In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements".<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/171.226.97.137|171.226.97.137]] 07:56, 31 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Maybe I don’t understand your specific point, but AFAICT you ''cannot'' generally combine a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA] work with a work under an other license, or, more specifically, when you combine a CC-BY-SA work with another work, the result must be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well. That is the same copyleft as in GFDL/GPL. On the other hand, LGPL allows you to combine an LGPL work (usually, a library) with another work (usually, an application), and distribute the result under any license. You cannot do that with CC-BY-SA, that is what the “share-alike” (-SA) tag is all about. On the other hand, [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC-BY] is a non-copyleft license which would allow that (but it is not the license Wikipedia uses). --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 11:52, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: True, GPL might allow less freedoms than for instance the MIT license. However that does not necesserily make GPL a non-free license. If you define a ''free license'' as the license with the most freedoms, then even the MIT/BSD/... licenses would have to be considered non-free, then only public domain could be considered truly free. However as there already is a definition for the public domain, the whole project of "Definition of Free Cultural Works" would not make sense then. Of course, the problem remains as of how broad you would want the Definition of Free Cultural Works to be. But from looking at the previous versions, the idea and intention of Definition of Free Cultural Works seems to have been to cover copyleft licenses as well, as they do not harm the main idea and purpose of Free Content. As [[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] said before, excluding copyleft licenses is a completely different definition. Maybe you are more looking for http://copyfree.org/standard/ instead? --[[User:T X|T X]] 14:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Definition of "Can" missing ==<br />
<br />
"Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can use, study, copy, change and improve..." -> Tribes in a lot of countries don't have computers - and therefore ''can't'' use the MIT/GPL/... licensed software I wrote. So my work is not a Free Cultural Work? (I guess such a conclusion is not intended)<br />
<br />
Maybe a definition for certain words, like "can", "may", ... should be added. Similiarly as keywords were specified for IETF's Internet Standards / RFCs (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). --[[User:T X|T X]] 13:37, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
In a similar vein, "should" is used a lot where some might argue for "must" (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt ) ([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006433.html idea from]). - [[User:KTucker|K]] 17:48, 12 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' ==<br />
<br />
Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can<br />
* Use<br />
* Study<br />
* Copy<br />
* Change and Improve <br />
<br />
I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four freedoms:<br />
<br />
* 'Study' is a form of 'Use': It's just a more specific form of usage - which, agreed, a lot of EULAs and laws try to exclude.<br />
* 'Distribution' should be added: If you were only looking at these four freedoms, even some content which you get via an NDA might fit these points. You can use, study and even copy the work for your own needs, you may change and improve it - however you won't be allowed to share any of these things afterwards.<br />
<br />
<br />
Therefore my suggestion, making more a whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality:<br />
<br />
* Use and Study<br />
* Copy and Distribute<br />
* Change and Improve<br />
<br />
So that the second verb of each freedom is actually a more specific form of the first verb of each freedom. The purpose of the second verb is to better reflect the true, good intent of the more neutral, more generic action defined in the first verb of a freedom, and to place some emphasize on this good intent, the idea behind it.<br />
<br />
(I'm not quite sure whether I'd prefer the word 'distribute' or 'share'. Maybe a native English speaker could give some insight on what (s)he thinks the differing connotations might be.) --[[User:T X|T X]] 04:25, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: The libre knowledge definition puts it this way:<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable" width="50%" <br />
|<br />
Users of libre knowledge are free to<br />
<br />
:(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
:(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
:(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
:(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
::i.e. "study" is about being able to adapt/modify - use (0) and adapt (1) to ''help yourself'', "copy" (2) is about sharing to ''help your neighbour'', and the last freedom (3) is to clarify that you can also share your modified versions (to ''help the community'').<br />
<br />
::Personally, I prefer to retain the link with the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] as does the [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge libre knowledge definition]. Knowledge and cultural resources cannot be regarded as free if they cannot be accessed and modified with libre software. Consistency is important. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:12, 12 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Libre==<br />
<br />
Please make it clear that this would also be the "[[Libre|libre cultural works]]" definition. <br />
:: The libre knowledge definition is completely compatible as far as I can tell. It appears in some form on the following pages: [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_Knowledge Libre knowledge on Wikipedia] and [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say libre]. i.e. at some key point state that free means "libre"/"free as in freedom" - perhaps as simply as writing free/libre at least once near the beginning. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:37, 3 March 2012 (EST)<br />
:: I have created a parallel "libre" version - [[Libre|Libre Cultural Works Definition]] - but would prefer this not to be necessary. Discuss this issue right here or on the libre version's [[Talk:Libre|discussion page]] - Thanks - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free-Libre-Open Hardware Definition ==<br />
<br />
Hello, I'm starting a "friendly fork" of the OSHW Definition here because, currently engaged in writing a free/libre/open hardware project proposal to a set of potential clients who are not at all familiar with the whole genre of free/libre/open approaches, I feel the current OSHW Definition is not concise enough to just reproduce as an excerpt. I also feel the current OSHW Definition risks the same division between "open source" methods and "free" ethics that has complicated relations for years within the free/libre/open source software community. <br />
<br />
Back in 2004 while preparing a presentation deck for my Director General in government, I needed to cram the OSI definition into a single screen: http://www.goslingcommunity.org/gtec2004.shtml In the end I felt the short version I had adapted was more useful as a definition than the original, in the same sense that dictionaries also hold to very concise phrases. Over the years too, I came to see the importance of including both the methods and ethics elements into projects. <br />
<br />
So what appears here as a "fork" to facilitate discussion is the current draft text that appears in my own free/libre/open hardware document. <br />
<br />
''DRAFT: '' http://freedomdefined.org/User:Jpotvin/Free-Libre-Open_Hardware_Definition<br />
<br />
I hope nobody is offended by this thorough change. Putting it up as a fork here just seemed to best way to discuss it without interfering with your main definition text.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
<br />
Joseph Potvin<br />
<br />
== allow passage for freedom activist ==<br />
<br />
hey im AliciaLakos.aka.STELLAR.ECLIPSE. Im 30 years old worked my entire life mostly volunteer work in giving the community art and music poetry and advice. Im a mother of a child and even a therapist to most that know me. Im well liked and enjoy helping people on their way to find your path. I care for others and im a good one to have on your side. my friends miss me and feel like there missing apart of themselves with out me.<br />
<br />
== Stellar.Eclipse ==<br />
<br />
Intuitive Mathmatic and educated in Science.</div>STELLAR.ECLIPSEhttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=14529Talk:Definition/Unstable2012-11-09T07:10:51Z<p>STELLAR.ECLIPSE: /* Need definition for "Unstable" as you know or understand it */</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|action=edit&section=new}} Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments until January 3, 2010]<br />
<br />
----<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==NEW ORDER WE NEEDthis Machine it is STABLE and SMART and IS GOING IN THE DIRECTION AS US!<br />
<br />
== [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits ==<br />
<br />
For what it's worth, I agree with [[User:Mormegil]] and his [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12071&oldid=12070 recent revert]. I don't understand what problem [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12044&oldid=12024 the edits in question] are trying to solve. Perhaps if they are explained them here, we can talk about it. —<b>[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#C40099">m</font><font color="#600099">a</font><font color="#2D0399">k</font><font color="#362365">o</font>]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#000000">๛</font>]]</b> 19:41, 26 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Suppressing copyleft ==<br />
<br />
In re 171.226.171.169’s ''I am trying to delist GFDL, GPL, LGPL, CC-BY-SA and other copyleft licenses'': While I can understand (and, for a part, agree with) the opinion that copyleft licenses are not “free”, I have to point out that this would be an ''extreme'' change of the definition. Note that this definition originates at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation, which use copyleft licenses extensively (the whole body of Wikipedia text is licensed under CC-BY-SA, for start), and which use the Definition as the [[wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy|criterion of acceptability]]. Changing the Definition so as to exclude copyleft would mean the whole Wikipedia contents would be against its own rules.<br />
<br />
I just can’t imagine the definition could change so radically (without becoming a completely different definition). An alternate definition is possible, but would be exactly that – ''alternate'', not just a new version of this.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'd think that CC-BY-SA and LGPL may be free, but GFDL and GPL are '''obviously''' non-free. Because you can include CC-BY-SA or LGPL works as part of works distributed under other licenses, but you cannot do the same thing with GPL and GFDL works. This is also why Wikipedia has moved from GFDL to GFDL + CC-BY-SA.<br />
Section 5 "Combining Documents" of the GFDL:<br />
:You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.<br />
<br />
:The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.<br />
<br />
:In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements".<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/171.226.97.137|171.226.97.137]] 07:56, 31 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Maybe I don’t understand your specific point, but AFAICT you ''cannot'' generally combine a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA] work with a work under an other license, or, more specifically, when you combine a CC-BY-SA work with another work, the result must be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well. That is the same copyleft as in GFDL/GPL. On the other hand, LGPL allows you to combine an LGPL work (usually, a library) with another work (usually, an application), and distribute the result under any license. You cannot do that with CC-BY-SA, that is what the “share-alike” (-SA) tag is all about. On the other hand, [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC-BY] is a non-copyleft license which would allow that (but it is not the license Wikipedia uses). --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 11:52, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: True, GPL might allow less freedoms than for instance the MIT license. However that does not necesserily make GPL a non-free license. If you define a ''free license'' as the license with the most freedoms, then even the MIT/BSD/... licenses would have to be considered non-free, then only public domain could be considered truly free. However as there already is a definition for the public domain, the whole project of "Definition of Free Cultural Works" would not make sense then. Of course, the problem remains as of how broad you would want the Definition of Free Cultural Works to be. But from looking at the previous versions, the idea and intention of Definition of Free Cultural Works seems to have been to cover copyleft licenses as well, as they do not harm the main idea and purpose of Free Content. As [[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] said before, excluding copyleft licenses is a completely different definition. Maybe you are more looking for http://copyfree.org/standard/ instead? --[[User:T X|T X]] 14:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Definition of "Can" missing ==<br />
<br />
"Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can use, study, copy, change and improve..." -> Tribes in a lot of countries don't have computers - and therefore ''can't'' use the MIT/GPL/... licensed software I wrote. So my work is not a Free Cultural Work? (I guess such a conclusion is not intended)<br />
<br />
Maybe a definition for certain words, like "can", "may", ... should be added. Similiarly as keywords were specified for IETF's Internet Standards / RFCs (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). --[[User:T X|T X]] 13:37, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
In a similar vein, "should" is used a lot where some might argue for "must" (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt ) ([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006433.html idea from]). - [[User:KTucker|K]] 17:48, 12 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' ==<br />
<br />
Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can<br />
* Use<br />
* Study<br />
* Copy<br />
* Change and Improve <br />
<br />
I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four freedoms:<br />
<br />
* 'Study' is a form of 'Use': It's just a more specific form of usage - which, agreed, a lot of EULAs and laws try to exclude.<br />
* 'Distribution' should be added: If you were only looking at these four freedoms, even some content which you get via an NDA might fit these points. You can use, study and even copy the work for your own needs, you may change and improve it - however you won't be allowed to share any of these things afterwards.<br />
<br />
<br />
Therefore my suggestion, making more a whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality:<br />
<br />
* Use and Study<br />
* Copy and Distribute<br />
* Change and Improve<br />
<br />
So that the second verb of each freedom is actually a more specific form of the first verb of each freedom. The purpose of the second verb is to better reflect the true, good intent of the more neutral, more generic action defined in the first verb of a freedom, and to place some emphasize on this good intent, the idea behind it.<br />
<br />
(I'm not quite sure whether I'd prefer the word 'distribute' or 'share'. Maybe a native English speaker could give some insight on what (s)he thinks the differing connotations might be.) --[[User:T X|T X]] 04:25, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: The libre knowledge definition puts it this way:<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable" width="50%" <br />
|<br />
Users of libre knowledge are free to<br />
<br />
:(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
:(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
:(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
:(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
::i.e. "study" is about being able to adapt/modify - use (0) and adapt (1) to ''help yourself'', "copy" (2) is about sharing to ''help your neighbour'', and the last freedom (3) is to clarify that you can also share your modified versions (to ''help the community'').<br />
<br />
::Personally, I prefer to retain the link with the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] as does the [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge libre knowledge definition]. Knowledge and cultural resources cannot be regarded as free if they cannot be accessed and modified with libre software. Consistency is important. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:12, 12 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Libre==<br />
<br />
Please make it clear that this would also be the "[[Libre|libre cultural works]]" definition. <br />
:: The libre knowledge definition is completely compatible as far as I can tell. It appears in some form on the following pages: [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_Knowledge Libre knowledge on Wikipedia] and [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say libre]. i.e. at some key point state that free means "libre"/"free as in freedom" - perhaps as simply as writing free/libre at least once near the beginning. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:37, 3 March 2012 (EST)<br />
:: I have created a parallel "libre" version - [[Libre|Libre Cultural Works Definition]] - but would prefer this not to be necessary. Discuss this issue right here or on the libre version's [[Talk:Libre|discussion page]] - Thanks - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free-Libre-Open Hardware Definition ==<br />
<br />
Hello, I'm starting a "friendly fork" of the OSHW Definition here because, currently engaged in writing a free/libre/open hardware project proposal to a set of potential clients who are not at all familiar with the whole genre of free/libre/open approaches, I feel the current OSHW Definition is not concise enough to just reproduce as an excerpt. I also feel the current OSHW Definition risks the same division between "open source" methods and "free" ethics that has complicated relations for years within the free/libre/open source software community. <br />
<br />
Back in 2004 while preparing a presentation deck for my Director General in government, I needed to cram the OSI definition into a single screen: http://www.goslingcommunity.org/gtec2004.shtml In the end I felt the short version I had adapted was more useful as a definition than the original, in the same sense that dictionaries also hold to very concise phrases. Over the years too, I came to see the importance of including both the methods and ethics elements into projects. <br />
<br />
So what appears here as a "fork" to facilitate discussion is the current draft text that appears in my own free/libre/open hardware document. <br />
<br />
''DRAFT: '' http://freedomdefined.org/User:Jpotvin/Free-Libre-Open_Hardware_Definition<br />
<br />
I hope nobody is offended by this thorough change. Putting it up as a fork here just seemed to best way to discuss it without interfering with your main definition text.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
<br />
Joseph Potvin<br />
<br />
== allow passage for freedom activist ==<br />
<br />
hey im AliciaLakos.aka.STELLAR.ECLIPSE. Im 30 years old worked my entire life mostly volunteer work in giving the community art and music poetry and advice. Im a mother of a child and even a therapist to most that know me. Im well liked and enjoy helping people on their way to find your path. I care for others and im a good one to have on your side. my friends miss me and feel like there missing apart of themselves with out me.</div>STELLAR.ECLIPSEhttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&diff=14528Talk:Definition/Unstable2012-11-09T07:05:23Z<p>STELLAR.ECLIPSE: /* allow passage for freedom activist */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>* '''[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|action=edit&section=new}} Start a new discussion topic]'''<br />
<br />
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments until June 20, 2006]<br />
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments until January 3, 2010]<br />
<br />
----<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
== Need definition for "Unstable" as you know or understand it ==<br />
<br />
Thoughts, anyone? Anyone at all that isn't a machine?<br />
<br />
== [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits ==<br />
<br />
For what it's worth, I agree with [[User:Mormegil]] and his [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12071&oldid=12070 recent revert]. I don't understand what problem [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12044&oldid=12024 the edits in question] are trying to solve. Perhaps if they are explained them here, we can talk about it. —<b>[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#C40099">m</font><font color="#600099">a</font><font color="#2D0399">k</font><font color="#362365">o</font>]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#000000">๛</font>]]</b> 19:41, 26 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Suppressing copyleft ==<br />
<br />
In re 171.226.171.169’s ''I am trying to delist GFDL, GPL, LGPL, CC-BY-SA and other copyleft licenses'': While I can understand (and, for a part, agree with) the opinion that copyleft licenses are not “free”, I have to point out that this would be an ''extreme'' change of the definition. Note that this definition originates at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation, which use copyleft licenses extensively (the whole body of Wikipedia text is licensed under CC-BY-SA, for start), and which use the Definition as the [[wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy|criterion of acceptability]]. Changing the Definition so as to exclude copyleft would mean the whole Wikipedia contents would be against its own rules.<br />
<br />
I just can’t imagine the definition could change so radically (without becoming a completely different definition). An alternate definition is possible, but would be exactly that – ''alternate'', not just a new version of this.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'd think that CC-BY-SA and LGPL may be free, but GFDL and GPL are '''obviously''' non-free. Because you can include CC-BY-SA or LGPL works as part of works distributed under other licenses, but you cannot do the same thing with GPL and GFDL works. This is also why Wikipedia has moved from GFDL to GFDL + CC-BY-SA.<br />
Section 5 "Combining Documents" of the GFDL:<br />
:You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.<br />
<br />
:The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.<br />
<br />
:In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements".<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/171.226.97.137|171.226.97.137]] 07:56, 31 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Maybe I don’t understand your specific point, but AFAICT you ''cannot'' generally combine a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA] work with a work under an other license, or, more specifically, when you combine a CC-BY-SA work with another work, the result must be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well. That is the same copyleft as in GFDL/GPL. On the other hand, LGPL allows you to combine an LGPL work (usually, a library) with another work (usually, an application), and distribute the result under any license. You cannot do that with CC-BY-SA, that is what the “share-alike” (-SA) tag is all about. On the other hand, [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC-BY] is a non-copyleft license which would allow that (but it is not the license Wikipedia uses). --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 11:52, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: True, GPL might allow less freedoms than for instance the MIT license. However that does not necesserily make GPL a non-free license. If you define a ''free license'' as the license with the most freedoms, then even the MIT/BSD/... licenses would have to be considered non-free, then only public domain could be considered truly free. However as there already is a definition for the public domain, the whole project of "Definition of Free Cultural Works" would not make sense then. Of course, the problem remains as of how broad you would want the Definition of Free Cultural Works to be. But from looking at the previous versions, the idea and intention of Definition of Free Cultural Works seems to have been to cover copyleft licenses as well, as they do not harm the main idea and purpose of Free Content. As [[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] said before, excluding copyleft licenses is a completely different definition. Maybe you are more looking for http://copyfree.org/standard/ instead? --[[User:T X|T X]] 14:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Definition of "Can" missing ==<br />
<br />
"Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can use, study, copy, change and improve..." -> Tribes in a lot of countries don't have computers - and therefore ''can't'' use the MIT/GPL/... licensed software I wrote. So my work is not a Free Cultural Work? (I guess such a conclusion is not intended)<br />
<br />
Maybe a definition for certain words, like "can", "may", ... should be added. Similiarly as keywords were specified for IETF's Internet Standards / RFCs (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). --[[User:T X|T X]] 13:37, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
In a similar vein, "should" is used a lot where some might argue for "must" (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt ) ([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006433.html idea from]). - [[User:KTucker|K]] 17:48, 12 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' ==<br />
<br />
Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can<br />
* Use<br />
* Study<br />
* Copy<br />
* Change and Improve <br />
<br />
I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four freedoms:<br />
<br />
* 'Study' is a form of 'Use': It's just a more specific form of usage - which, agreed, a lot of EULAs and laws try to exclude.<br />
* 'Distribution' should be added: If you were only looking at these four freedoms, even some content which you get via an NDA might fit these points. You can use, study and even copy the work for your own needs, you may change and improve it - however you won't be allowed to share any of these things afterwards.<br />
<br />
<br />
Therefore my suggestion, making more a whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality:<br />
<br />
* Use and Study<br />
* Copy and Distribute<br />
* Change and Improve<br />
<br />
So that the second verb of each freedom is actually a more specific form of the first verb of each freedom. The purpose of the second verb is to better reflect the true, good intent of the more neutral, more generic action defined in the first verb of a freedom, and to place some emphasize on this good intent, the idea behind it.<br />
<br />
(I'm not quite sure whether I'd prefer the word 'distribute' or 'share'. Maybe a native English speaker could give some insight on what (s)he thinks the differing connotations might be.) --[[User:T X|T X]] 04:25, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: The libre knowledge definition puts it this way:<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable" width="50%" <br />
|<br />
Users of libre knowledge are free to<br />
<br />
:(0) use the work for any purpose<br />
:(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs<br />
:(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part<br />
:(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
::i.e. "study" is about being able to adapt/modify - use (0) and adapt (1) to ''help yourself'', "copy" (2) is about sharing to ''help your neighbour'', and the last freedom (3) is to clarify that you can also share your modified versions (to ''help the community'').<br />
<br />
::Personally, I prefer to retain the link with the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] as does the [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge libre knowledge definition]. Knowledge and cultural resources cannot be regarded as free if they cannot be accessed and modified with libre software. Consistency is important. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:12, 12 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Libre==<br />
<br />
Please make it clear that this would also be the "[[Libre|libre cultural works]]" definition. <br />
:: The libre knowledge definition is completely compatible as far as I can tell. It appears in some form on the following pages: [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_Knowledge Libre knowledge on Wikipedia] and [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say libre]. i.e. at some key point state that free means "libre"/"free as in freedom" - perhaps as simply as writing free/libre at least once near the beginning. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:37, 3 March 2012 (EST)<br />
:: I have created a parallel "libre" version - [[Libre|Libre Cultural Works Definition]] - but would prefer this not to be necessary. Discuss this issue right here or on the libre version's [[Talk:Libre|discussion page]] - Thanks - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Free-Libre-Open Hardware Definition ==<br />
<br />
Hello, I'm starting a "friendly fork" of the OSHW Definition here because, currently engaged in writing a free/libre/open hardware project proposal to a set of potential clients who are not at all familiar with the whole genre of free/libre/open approaches, I feel the current OSHW Definition is not concise enough to just reproduce as an excerpt. I also feel the current OSHW Definition risks the same division between "open source" methods and "free" ethics that has complicated relations for years within the free/libre/open source software community. <br />
<br />
Back in 2004 while preparing a presentation deck for my Director General in government, I needed to cram the OSI definition into a single screen: http://www.goslingcommunity.org/gtec2004.shtml In the end I felt the short version I had adapted was more useful as a definition than the original, in the same sense that dictionaries also hold to very concise phrases. Over the years too, I came to see the importance of including both the methods and ethics elements into projects. <br />
<br />
So what appears here as a "fork" to facilitate discussion is the current draft text that appears in my own free/libre/open hardware document. <br />
<br />
''DRAFT: '' http://freedomdefined.org/User:Jpotvin/Free-Libre-Open_Hardware_Definition<br />
<br />
I hope nobody is offended by this thorough change. Putting it up as a fork here just seemed to best way to discuss it without interfering with your main definition text.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
<br />
Joseph Potvin<br />
<br />
== allow passage for freedom activist ==<br />
<br />
hey im AliciaLakos.aka.STELLAR.ECLIPSE. Im 30 years old worked my entire life mostly volunteer work in giving the community art and music poetry and advice. Im a mother of a child and even a therapist to most that know me. Im well liked and enjoy helping people on their way to find your path. I care for others and im a good one to have on your side. my friends miss me and feel like there missing apart of themselves with out me.</div>STELLAR.ECLIPSEhttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Moderators&diff=14527Moderators2012-11-09T06:22:24Z<p>STELLAR.ECLIPSE: /* Current moderators */</p>
<hr />
<div>The initial moderators of this site were hand-picked by the initiator of the definition, [[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]]. Each moderator has the right to suggest new moderators to the group, who are approved in consensus. The group of moderators is intended to be small, and to share the principal goals with which this definition was started.<br />
<br />
The moderators have two key privileges:<br />
* They can decide when a consensus (directly or by means of a vote) has been reached about a change to the [[Definition/Unstable|unstable version]] of the definition, and apply it to the stable version. (If there is a dispute among the moderators, it is considered to be a sign of no consensus.)<br />
* In extreme cases, as a group, they can veto certain changes that are counter to the philosophy of this definition, even if a majority of people are in favor of them.<br />
<br />
== Current moderators ==<br />
<br />
* [[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]]<br />
* [[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]]<br />
* [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]]<br />
* [[User:Mia Garlick|Mia Garlick]]<br />
* [[User:Elizabeth stark|Elizabeth Stark]]<br />
* [[User:Alicia Lakos.STELLAR.ECLIPSE]]</div>STELLAR.ECLIPSEhttps://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=14526Definition/Unstable2012-11-09T06:14:30Z<p>STELLAR.ECLIPSE: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{divbox|blue|Unstable version|This is the openly editable version of the definition. Please try to find a consensus for any significant changes you make on the [[Talk:Definition/Unstable|discussion page]]. If you want to work on a substantially different derivative, you can try [[creating a fork]]. See [[authoring process]] for more information.}}<br />
<br />
----<br />
This document provides a definition of "Free Cultural Works" [the Definition], which are roughly works or expressions that can be freely studied, applied, copied and modified, by anyone and for any purpose. The Definition distinguishes between ''free works'' and ''[[licenses|free licenses]]'' which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is ''not'' a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free." This document also describes restrictions that respect or protect the freedoms of Free Cultural Works.<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
'''Free Cultural Works''' are works which anyone can <br />
* '''Use'''<br />
* '''Study''' <br />
* '''Copy'''<br />
* '''Change and Improve'''<br />
* '''Sell'''<br />
<br />
'''Free Culture Licenses''' are legal instruments by which copyright owners grant users these freedoms and make their works into Free Cultural Works.<br />
<br />
In addition to the 4 freedoms listed above '''Free Cultural licenses''' may also include certain restrictions. These can include:<br />
* '''Attribution''' - acknowledge other authors<br />
* '''Share-alike''' or '''Copyleft'''- derived works must be licensed under the same or compatible license as the original<br />
* '''Protection of Freedoms''' - the license may require additional permissions or information is distributed with the works (such as source code, design drawings, musical scores, access codes) where these are needed to create new versions of the work.<br />
* '''Due Credit''' Give credit where credit is due. If it's not your work do not claim it as yours.<br />
allow freedom of speech. Do not copy others work through vocabulary or written without verbally saying the artist or writer who first created the idea if it was not their own idea.<br />
<br />
== Preamble ==<br />
<br />
Since the earliest humans appeared on planet earth they have drawn, painted, sang, carved, weaved, danced, recited, built, studied. These cultural works have been passed down from parent to child, from master to apprentice ever since, each taking the works of those that went before and passing it on to those who came after; each adding and improving and polishing and translating what they received so that human culture could grow and develop.<br />
<br />
Since Science has been based on an explicit philosophy of sharing information, with all scientists expected to publish and any scientist free to repeat any experiment, we have seen an unprecedented explosion of scientific knowledge.<br />
<br />
In recent years social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of humanity to share cultural works that can be represented in digital form with other people they have never met in person. These works include artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, stories, audio and video recordings. Many communities have formed to exercise these new possibilities and create a wealth of collectively reusable works. As these collaboratively produced works grow in commercial value there is ever greater pressure to monetise these works, to erect toll gates so that the community who collaborated to create these works can be charged to access them.<br />
<br />
At different time over the years Copyright and Patent legislation has been introduced as a way of restricting and taxing that free flow of information - as a way of rewarding particularly innovative new contributions or favoured supporters of the government of the time. These laws have been used to create the tollgates mentioned above.<br />
<br />
'''Free Culture licenses''' have been created to provide a legal framework which reflects these collaborative working practices, providing a simple way for people to share with others the rights needed for such collaborations to happen, so that users can collaborate and work together to create and improve '''Free Culture Works''' and ensure that these works stay free.<br />
<br />
==Free Cultural Works==<br />
Free Cultural Works are works where<br />
* '''anyone''', i.e. rich or poor, socialist or fascist, man, woman or corporation;<br />
* '''anywhere''', i.e. worldwide;<br />
* '''anytime''', i.e. unlimited and irrevocable and forever.<br />
has each of the following freedoms<br />
====The freedom to use and perform the work====<br />
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 or commercial considerations.<br />
<br />
====The freedom to study the work and apply the information====<br />
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 />
====The freedom to redistribute copies====<br />
whether they are sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. Neither may there be a limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied. The license may not, for example, forbid "Commercial' exploitation of the work.<br />
<br />
====The freedom to distribute derivative works====<br />
including modified versions (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications.<br />
<br />
== Permissible restrictions==<br />
There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we feel do not impede the essential freedom in our definition. These restrictions can therefore be included in Free Culture licenses. They are described below.<br />
<br />
=== Attribution of authors ===<br />
<br />
Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.<br />
<br />
In addition to the requirement for attribution the license may include restrictions to ensure the original author is not seen to be responsible for changes to the work made by others. This may include restrictions on the use of trademarks.<br />
<br />
=== Transmission of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
<br />
The license may include a clause, often called ''copyleft'' or ''share-alike'', which ensures that derivative works themselves remain free works. To this effect, it can for example require that derivative works are made available under the same free license as the original.<br />
<br />
The license may restrict the redistribution of the work as part of a compilation with other works unless the other other works are under the same license or are under another free license.<br />
<br />
The license may require that where the work is used to provide a service over the internet then users of the service will have rights under the license, such as the right to access, copy, amend and redistribute the source code for software.<br />
<br />
=== Protection of freedoms ===<br />
<br />
The license may include clauses that strive to further ensure that the ability to exercise the freedoms listed above is not restricted by technical or other means. These can include:<br />
* '''Availability of source data:''' Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of design information or a source file or multiple source files, the license may require that 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 drawings and parts list of a machine, or any other such information.<br />
* '''Use of a free format:''' For digital files, the license may require that the format in which the work is made available should not be one that can only be read using a particular manufacturers program. Formats should be documented and should not be restricted by patents, unless these patents are licensed for use in free works. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy means that the information will be accessible to everyone, for ever.<br />
* '''No technical restrictions:''' The license may require that 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 license may specify that it may not be used to distribute works which are covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights or being for non-commercial use only) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. This can mean that if you agree to pay a patent holder for the right to use a program then you can lose the right to distribute that program (since you have acknowledged that you think the patent applies to the programme). This is sometimes known as a '''Liberty or Death''' clause and makes it more dificult for owners of weak patents to divide the users by offering deals to some users under the threat of a costly lawsuit.<br />
<br />
===No other restrictions ===<br />
<br />
Apart from these allowed restrictions, the license ''must not'' include clauses that limit essential freedoms. See [[Permissible restrictions]]<br />
<br />
== Free Culture Licenses ==<br />
It is important that any work that claims to be free provides, practically and without any risk, the aforementioned freedoms.<br />
<br />
All new works are automatically covered by existing copyright laws which default to All Rights Reserved. All Rights Reserved considerably limit what others can and cannot do with the work. Authors can make their works free by choosing among a number of legal documents known as licenses which grant users the 4 freedoms listed above. <br />
<br />
Licenses are legal instruments through which the owner of certain legal rights may transfer these rights to third parties. Free Culture Licenses do not take rights away — they specify freedoms that are not included in a default copyright license such as All Rights Reserved. When accepted, they never limit or reduce existing user rights and exemptions under copyright law. Because the grant rights which are additional to the rights users have under copyright therefore users are not required to accept the license unless they want to exercise those additional rights.<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 ''[http://freedomdefined.org Definition of Free Cultural Works]''." If you do not like the term "Free Cultural Work," you can use the generic term "Free Content," or refer instead to one of the [[Existing Movements|existing movements]] that express similar freedoms in more specific contexts. We also encourage you to use the [[logos and buttons|Free Cultural Works logos and buttons]], which are in the public domain.<br />
<br />
Please be advised that such identification does ''not'' actually confer the rights described in this definition; for your work to be actually free, it must use one of the Free Culture [[Licenses]] or be in the public domain, or equivalent of.<br />
<br />
Please don't use other terms to identify Cultural Works; terms which do not convey a clear definition of freedom; terms such as "Open Content" and "Open Access." These terms are often used to refer to content which is available under "less restrictive" terms than All Rights Reserved, or for works that are just "available on the Web", but they don't necessarily carry with them the freedoms referred to in this document.<br />
<br />
== Availability of legal instruments ==<br />
''Can'' in ''anyone can use, study, copy, change and improve'' ([[Definition/Unstable#Summary|summary]]) means anyone can realistically make his case in court that such freedom was granted. It implies that where a work is made free by way of a free cultural license, the legal instrument, by which the copyright or other right owner grants the license, must also be available to anyone in the legal form that is legally binding in the relevant legal context. The legal instrument should not be jealously and secretly kept by the first licensee.<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* See [[Licenses]] for discussion of individual licenses, and whether they meet this definition or not.<br />
* See [[History]] for acknowledgments and background on this definition.<br />
* See the [[FAQ]] for some questions and answers.<br />
* See [[Portal:Index]] for topic-specific pages about free cultural works.<br />
* See [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_knowledge Wikipedia on Free/Libre Knowledge]<br />
* See [http://ictlogy.net/?p=12#fourkinds The Four Kinds of Freedom of Free Knowledge]<br />
<br />
== Versioning ==<br />
<br />
New versions of this definition shall be released as soon as a consensus (achieved directly or through a vote, as per the [[authoring process]]) has developed around suggested changes. Numbering shall be 0.x for initial draft releases, 1.x, 2.x .. for major releases, x.1, x.2 .. for minor releases. A minor release is made when the text is modified in ways which do not have an impact on the scope of existing or hypothetical licenses covered by this definition.<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__</div>STELLAR.ECLIPSE