Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 6: |
Line 6: |
| ---- | | ---- |
| __TOC__ | | __TOC__ |
| | |
| | == Need definition for "Unstable" as you know or understand it == |
| | |
| | Thoughts, anyone? Anyone at all that isn't a machine? |
|
| |
|
| == [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits == | | == [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits == |
Line 86: |
Line 90: |
| :: 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) | | :: 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) |
| :: 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) | | :: 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) |
| ::I find the gratis meaning of "free" to be very confusing to newcomers and am in favor of reworking the text to use "libre" or another unambigious adjective. [[User:Cov|Cov]] 19:18, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Free-Libre-Open Hardware Definition ==
| |
|
| |
| 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.
| |
|
| |
| 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.
| |
|
| |
| 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.
| |
|
| |
| ''DRAFT: '' http://freedomdefined.org/User:Jpotvin/Free-Libre-Open_Hardware_Definition
| |
|
| |
| 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.
| |
|
| |
| Regards,
| |
|
| |
| Joseph Potvin
| |
|
| |
| == Updating and creating a stable version. ==
| |
|
| |
| Hello, my name is Michelle Kosik, I'm new to this so please excuse my inexperience. I was hopping we can make the font bigger or bolder. How do I change the version to the stable vershion?
| |
|
| |
| : You don’t just change the stable version. See [[Authoring process]] for more information. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 05:18, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Permalink ==
| |
|
| |
| [[Definition]] should contain a link to [[Definition/1.1]] to make it easier for people to refer to that version specifically. (People who write books, for example, might not intend to link to [[Definition]] which is a moving target, but to [[Definition/1.1]] which their book refers to.)
| |
|
| |
| : I added the link into the grey introduction box. Do you think it is OK? --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 11:58, 17 February 2015 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| == Expire of licenses if break ==
| |
|
| |
| Some licenses, that are declared as free, expire, if you break them. I can't see that this restriction is allowed. -- [[User:David23x|David23x]] ([[User talk:David23x|talk]]) 10:55, 1 October 2015 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Source requirement on stable vs. optional source offer on unstable ==
| |
|
| |
| I have noticed, thanks to '''some''' people on a IRC channel on chat.freenode.net, that the stable version requires source files to be redistributed and be on a format/standard/codec that is friendly to free/libre software, while the unstable version puts redistribution of source files as an option.
| |
|
| |
| I, personally, see that, under the stable definition, almost no work would qualify as free/libre cultural work, not even those under free/libre licenses.
| |
|
| |
| I'm not a free/libre culture activist (I'm only a free/libre software activist that thinks that non-functional data (like images, sound, and such) should be at least shareable), but I just want to know why the changes related to this difference weren't made to the stable version? What's the reasoning for holding it? I know there's no consensus, but can you describe the points where the opinions
| |