Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!

Talk:Definition/Unstable: Difference between revisions

From Definition of Free Cultural Works
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎file application: new section)
(Blanked the page)
Tags: Blanking Reverted
(204 intermediate revisions by 90 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
*
'''[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|action=edit&section=new}}
Start a new discussion topic]'''


* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments
until June 20, 2006]
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments
until January 3, 2010]
----
__TOC__
== Need definition for "Unstable" as you know or understand it ==
Thoughts, anyone? Anyone at all that isn't a machine?
== [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits == 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)
== Suppressing copyleft == 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. 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.
--[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 Oc
== Definition of "Can" missing == "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) 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) 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)
== Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' == Free
Cultural Works are works which anyone can * Use * Study * Copy * Change
and Improve I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four
freedoms: * '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. *
'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. Therefore my suggestion, making more a
whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality: * Use and
Study * Copy and Distribute * Change and Improve 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
==Libre==
Please make it clear that this would also be the "[[Libre|libre cultural
works]]" definition.
:: 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)
== 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)
== file application  ==
network conection

Revision as of 14:12, 17 May 2024
Retrieved from "https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=27413"