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
m (Reverted edit by 2601:780:4400:3740:2C48:1834:F852:83AA (talk) to last revision by Mormegil)
Tag: Rollback
 
(332 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]'''
* '''[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|action=edit&section=new}} Start a new discussion topic]'''


* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments until June 20, 2006]
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments until January 3, 2010]


== Pushing to 1.0 ==
----
__TOC__


I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:
== [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits ==


* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.
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)
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.


Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.
== Suppressing copyleft ==


Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
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.


Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition.
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.
Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog:
i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html FSF]].  
Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about:
Users are free to
(0) use the work for any purpose
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]
(Kim)


It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition:
--[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
[http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources]:
Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource;
to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share
enhancements or derived works.


== Making it shorter ==
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.
Section 5 "Combining Documents" of the GFDL:
: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.
: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.
: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".


Great work, Erik!
[[Special:Contributions/171.226.97.137|171.226.97.137]] 07:56, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.


In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.
: 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)


Regards
: 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)
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)


: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)
== Definition of "Can" missing ==


: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)
"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)


Agreed - too long. In the early stages of [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Communities], we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:
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)


Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.
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)


Users are free to:
== Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' ==


(0) use the work for any purpose
Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can
* Use
* Study
* Copy
* Change and Improve


(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs
I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four freedoms:


(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part
* '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.


(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result similarly.


Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Foundation]
Therefore my suggestion, making more a whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality:
(Kim)


== Use of the term "Free" ==
* Use and Study
* Copy and Distribute
* Change and Improve


If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
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.


:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.
(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)
:In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)


: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)
:: The libre knowledge definition puts it this way:
<center>
{| class="wikitable" width="50%"
|
Users of libre knowledge are free to


: The [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. [http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]
:(0) use the work for any purpose
:(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs
:(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part
:(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result.
|}
</center>
::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'').


A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [[http://freedomdefined.org/User:Ktucker Kim]]
::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)


* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. [http://communities.libre.org/ Libre Resources Definition]). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.
==Libre==


* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).
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)
::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)


Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"
== Free-Libre-Open Hardware Definition ==


[http://communities.libre.org/philosophy/saylibre Say Libre] - [http://www.wikieducator.org/Say_Libre discuss].
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.  


== Altruism or not ==
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.


Hi,
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.


the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.
''DRAFT: '' http://freedomdefined.org/User:Jpotvin/Free-Libre-Open_Hardware_Definition


It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.
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.


--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)
Regards,


== More changes ==
Joseph Potvin


Hi,
== Updating and creating a stable version. ==


I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.
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?


Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful).
: 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)


Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)
== Permalink ==


== Alternate preamble ==
[[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 would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)
: 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)


Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.
== Expire of licenses if break ==
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.


In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.
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)


Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:
== Source requirement on stable vs. optional source offer on unstable ==
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works


For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.
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.


To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.
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.


The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".
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
 
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)
 
== Final name ==
 
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)
 
: Hu?
: First, welcome back...
: Then, it's shocking to learn that ''you've finally settled'' on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals '''zero''' result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?
: (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)
 
: You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?
 
: Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example).  Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".
 
: All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.
 
: Bye, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)
 
::  It was important to us (Mako and myself, the co-initiators of the definition) to label the definition in a way which is agreeable to the important institutions of the Free Culture movement -- FSF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and so on.  The discussion on the wiki was absolutely crucial to the entire process. All the names that have been listed here have been mentioned and repeatedly considered.  Mako and I have spoken personally to Lessig, RMS, Moglen, and others about this. Now that, after many hours of talking, we have finally found something everyone seems to be able to agree to (more or less enthusiastically), you will have to understand that I am reluctant to second-guess the decision. Certainly, it is always nicer to have a larger scale community process to give a decision legitimacy, but I also believe that process is not an end in itself, and hope we can move foward together. I certainly appreciate (and am well aware of) all the work you have done on this wiki.
 
:: Regarding your specific critique: the strength of "Free Cultural Works", in my opinion, is that it references the notion of "Free Culture" without explicitly being called a "Free Culture Definition". It also reduces the "work (labor)" vs. "work (intellectual)" ambiguity in the singular. For example, if I refer to a CD as a "Free Work", the response "So you've worked for free?" is almost inevitable. I do not agree that "Free Cultural" excludes software or scientific articles; in my opinion, both are very much and very clearly cultural works, and should be explicitly referenced.
 
:: That the title of the definition itself is not quite catchy may not be such a bad thing -- we will not attempt to prescribe that you have to call free cultural works by that exact phrase. Instead, what I would like to do is to explicitly reference other phrases which have similar meanings, such as "free content" and "open knowledge".--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 17:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)
 
::: I understand you want to put Lessig, RMS and others on our side, but I think we shouldn't care. We have to do this work because FSF and CC refused to take position in the first place, so we are the ones setting a standard.
 
::: Anyway, I'm ready to further contribute. But, sincerely, it will be difficult unless things stop being done in private. Regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:06, 25 October 2006 (CEST)
 
::: It would be fine if there had been offline discussion, provided that details were posted to the wiki here so that we could also see it, at the time or after the fact. Indeed, you have a wiki, so one might ask why the discussion was not carried out through the wiki, which would seem designed for the task?
 
::: Also, like Antoine, I have a great deal of respect for Richard Stallman and for Lawrence Lessig, who through their writings have between them opened my eyes to freedom. Nevertheless, we should not fear to build on that, and hope to equal or exceed what has passed before.
 
::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:48, 25 October 2006 (CEST)
 
 
<table align="center" border="1" width="80%">
<tr><td>
"Definition of Free Cultural Works" suggests [http://creativecommons.org/ "Creative Commons"] and the associated [http://www.free-culture.cc/ "Free Culture" book]. While these are both brilliant, they suggest a range of licenses most of which are non-free. We need to focus on the free/<em>libre</em> licenses which conform to the definition we are developing.
 
Prefer something like "Definition of Libre Works" or "Definition of Free/Libre Resources", etc. - or simply "Libre Definition" - Kim Tucker 30 October 2006.</td></tr></table>
 
:::: I concur with your comments, and I'm not terribly happy either with the term "Cultural" nor with the term "Works", for various reasons. Libre Definition or Libre Content Definition would be much more acceptable, and I often use the term "Software libre" in preference to "Free software" for similar reasons. So far Libre is not really an English word in itself, but perhaps we should adopt it and make it so anyway, since "Free" in current English has too many connotations of both "Libre" and "Gratis" which are avoided by use of a more precise term.
 
:::: --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 00:55, 31 October 2006 (CET)
 
::::: ''Libre'' doesn't work for me -- too strange and foreign, too easily to confuse with "Libri" (books).  IMHO focusing the "Free Culture" movement on a clearer notion of freedom is a worthy goal in its own right.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 02:32, 2 November 2006 (CET)
 
::::: That's a reasonable point, and is the same reason that "Free software" is the normal expression in English, rather than "Software libre" although that can of course be used as well - and much of our language derives from expressions which were originally "strange and foreign" but became familiar and commonplace because people started using them anyway.
 
::::: For our purposes it's unfortunate, due to the confusion in English between "libre" and "gratis" according to context, where "libre" captures our intended meaning. So far the best expression I've seen is "Free Content Definition" as in the present unstable definition, as dropping the "and Expression" was a distinct improvement, and we can explain that we mean ''Free content'' in the sense of liberty not price. --[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:09, 5 November 2006 (CET)
 
:::::: Libre disambiguates, while "free" is foreign and confusing to most people on the planet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre#Libre Wikipedia on Libre] indicates that the word "Libre" is used in various [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages Romance languages] while "gratis is common in Germanic and Romance languages. So, at least speakers of those languages would identify with these terms, and no-one would be confused about what is meant.
In various circles, the term FLOSS is being used more and more - probably encouraged by high profile research projects such as [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSWorld] and [http://flosspols.org/ FLOSSPols] among others and in articles in [http://www.firstmonday.org First Monday] where the acronym FLOSS is used more than FOSS (the L is significant).
I think it is time (and would be useful) to make "libre" an accepted English word - like so many others from the Romance languages :-). [[User:ktucker|Kim]] 20070118
 
== look forward to seeing updates, anyway ==
 
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.
 
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else ''generalised'', applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's ''Cultural'', and whether or not it's a ''Work'' however that is defined.
 
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:
 
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.
 
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ philosophy] page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.
 
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)
 
:I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.
 
:regards, [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)
 
I also find the use of the term "god-like" unsavoury. This term might be offensive to parctitioners of certain faiths, particulary if or when the definition is translated to certain languages. I belive that such a definition would be most useful if it written in an as unequivocal a language as possible, while at the same time avoiding a legalistic style. Not that this is an easy task, but avoiding emotionally charged language would help.
 
btw, it is the laws, not the countries that create the situation, this is not clear in the current.
"thier content" is metaphoric and emotional, and I'm not clear why its re-use, not plain use.
 
I would rewrite this sentence as follows:
<cite> They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. </cite> to
'''Such laws provide authors with extraordianry rights, effectivly granting them an exlusive monopoly as to how the content they create can be used.'''
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:33, 17 February 2007 (CET)
:[[Talk:Definition#.22god-like_creators.22.3F|Additional thoughts.]]  Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 23:57, 10 April 2007 (CEST)
 
== Added "freedom to use" to the preamble ==
 
As it was the preamble was not consistent with subsequent sections; please amend and re-edit as may be necessary.
 
--[[User:Mercury merlin|Mercury Merlin]] 22:42, 26 October 2006 (CEST)
 
== (re)distribute v. communicate ==
 
When we talk about information distribution esseantially equals communication. After all, the network, and the community, consists of people, and the information that is shared by the community isn't "distributed" it is "communicated".
 
I thus argue that
 
# the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
# the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works
 
should be changed to something along the lines of
 
# the freedom to communicate the information or expression to anyone, without restriction
# the freedom to communicate mutated versions of the information or expression
 
== Definition and / or manifesto? ==
 
The current preamble asserts that (all) cultural works should be free. Is this really to be part of the definition? My guess is that many people are interested in a definition, without necessarily being in support of this claim. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 17:48, 28 February 2007 (CET)
 
: Saying that works of authorship should be free seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement to me. The definition does not advocate abolishing copyright law to ''achieve'' that goal, nor does it set any kind of timetable -- in fact, it doesn't even assert that this goal is achievable for all works of authorship. It merely expresses a clear moral preference of free over non-free works. This moral preference is, indeed, something which I think we should communicate, as the definition is not meant to be merely a sterile legal text, but part of a social movement which agrees with this very basic notion -- but may favor different methods to achieve it, or even disagree upon its ultimate feasibility.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 20:49, 28 February 2007 (CET)
 
:: It is not my intention to question that the preference of free works should be stated on the site. Still, it is hardly part the definition of a free work. Therefore, I would suggest another page for the moral and philosophy, separated from the definition. /[[User:Novidius|Novidius]] 15:29, 1 March 2007 (CET)
 
== Digital vs. Analog (non-digital) ==
 
It seems to me that this definition refers, and implicitly applies exclusively to, Digital renditions. I do not know if this is intentional, but it is defiantly not a bad thing. I believe that for a work to be really free it needs to be replicatable (i.e. it should be possible to make a perfect copy, not that it is possible to come up with it again from scratch). This is only practically possible (easy) with text (hence the power of writing) and today with digital media. If there is agreement with this vein of thought I think that it should be made more explicit in the definition.
 
This would nicely lead to the statement that the freedoms required by the definition cannot be technically impaired or limited (e.g. through the use of propriety digital formats)
e.g. an audio clip can be released under CC-BY-SA as an .ogg and as a .wma, but  only the .ogg version should be considered free under this definition.
 
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 12:35, 9 March 2007 (CET)
 
:Actually, the definition tries to take physical (non-digital) works into account. A license like the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] was explicitly drafted with physical works in mind as well. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 18:38, 13 March 2007 (CET)
 
:: <cite> ...make it possible for a growing part of humanity to access, create, modify, publish and distribute cultural works that can be represented in digital form ...</cite> This sentence gives the opposite impression. It's really a matter of clarity.
::Also can this definition apply to an original oil painting on canvas? how can "The freedom to redistribute copies" be reconciled with "No technical restrictions" when the only way to make a copy of an oil painting is to employ a copy artist with great technical skill to make a copy; what is somtimes called a "fake". -[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 03:49, 21 March 2007 (CET)
 
:::Ok, the quote above is part of the preamble, it explains the technical context that makes free content more and more relevant. But the definition itself is not specific to digital works.
:::As for making copies of a painting, I don't see having skills as a "technical restriction". For making a copy of a digital image, you also need technical skills (copying a file on a computer is a skill, even if a basic one). In the spirit of this definition, a restriction is a burden that is deliberately added by the author/producer/distributor, not a requirement inherent to the kind of work. If I want to modify a piece of software and recompile it, I'd better know how to code: is it a "technical restriction" too?
:::By the way, while you need some very good skills to make a near-perfect copy, you can also make a very approximate copy which would still qualify as a breach of "intellectual property" if the original painting was not under a free license.
:::--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:21, 21 March 2007 (CET)
 
:::I think the definition can be reconciled by requiring any work which can be modified non-destructively to allow modification -- but any work which cannot be should have no restrictions on derivatives which do not destroy the original work. ("No technical restrictions" may even include not being displayed in a venue which does not allow photography -- which is a huge technical restriction right now on creating derivatives of works which should have fallen into the public domain.) [[User:Mindspillage|Kat Walsh]] 18:13, 28 March 2007 (CEST)
 
:::Good point Kat. But the real problem is not with deriviative works but with copies. It is the Freedom to redistribute copies that creates a problem. Contrast the digital domain, where a copy of a pice of code has the same value (not neccecarly monatary) as the original, with the art domain where a copy always has a different value (not nessecarly minor) by virtue of being a copy. Then again contrast that with music, where a score can be copied, but the music itself is only ever interpreted never copied, even if the same piece is performed twice in a row by the same person. Again the technical skill to copy/compile code can be easly acquired, and is widely available and distributied, espessially when compared to the ability to make 'indistinguishable' copies of artwork, which is a rare abilty at best, impossible at worst. A rough copy, might infringe copyright, but it is a deriviative work. I apologize for being the devil's advocate, but I belive that if this definition is to be used outside of the domain of digital works it need to be written in a way that makes sense to people who might have a very different idea of what "to copy a creative work" means, different from that of geeks and probabbly different from one another's. I, more or less, understand what is meant and the inherent limitations because I'm familiar with FLOSS and wikipedia, but if I were to read this text the the Music Professor who I occasionally have to help use the photocopier, 'cause he can't even set it to A3, his interpretaion will be that this was written by a bunch of rebles tring to lay their hands on his royalties :-) --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 20:18, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
 
== The role of the source file requirement? ==
 
I agree that something like the source file requirement needs to be included.  I think it aims at several related ideals:
 
# Providing a modifiable format (e.g. a text file rather than a PDF)
# Providing a format informative to humans (e.g. a musical score rather than an Ogg Vorbis recording)
# Providing necessary information that is only summarized or analyzed in the distributed work at all (e.g. providing the actual coded dataset for a paper reporting the results of a regression analysis)
 
I'm not sure that the "source file" concept quite addresses these issues.  As applied to software, source code gets at (1) very well, (2) pretty well, and (3) doesn't usually arise.  I wonder whether there is some more helpful term the definition could use, or perhaps whether the item itself should be split into more than one.
 
== "their content" ==
 
Why the sneering tone towards authorship?  Free Content isn't about limiting author's rights, it's about convincing people that it's better for authors to share, not that they're misguided in wanting some control at all. It's really all about the author's control over the work, because without it an author couldn't say "you must follow the GPL" any more than he could say 'no copying.' [[User:130.58.194.111|130.58.194.111]] 05:08, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 
== "purpose" ==
 
Speaking as a translator, I find the very first sentence ambiguous: "''This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose.''"
 
Is "purpose" here ''purpose'' as in motivation; or ''purpose'' as in manner of using? "For fun" is a purpose, but so is "as a doorstop". Perhaps some grammatician can say that one of those is semantically not a valid understanding of "purpose" or that they are in a larger sense equivalent, but I am worried about the casual reader, and will note that some languages (definitely not Finnish) may not find a direct equivalent for such a flexible word. -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro]] 15:55, 25 June 2007 (CEST)
 
:It's purpose as in reason (or "manner of using" as you said it). [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 16:49, 25 June 2007 (CEST)
 
:I tend to disagree. My interpretation leaned towards ''intention'' rather then ''action'' but both aspects, should be covered. that is why the word purpose is useful, albeit a headache for translators, who have to see how to encapsulate both meanings. By negation, a book with a licence that forbids you from using a printed version of it a fodder for a fire cannot be said to be free. A book with a licence which disallows you from using it in an language class as an example of bad grammar is also not free. maybe: "...copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose." should become: "...copied and/or modified, by any person (both legal and natural), for any purpose, in manner and intention." but that sounds too legalistic, doesn't it?
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 17:19, 26 June 2007 (CEST)
 
::Indeed. I went around the obstacle, and listed both meanings separately. I don't see why it wouldn't benefit the english version to be explicit about there being these two components to "purpose" either. -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro]] 17:06, 27 June 2007 (CEST)
 
== "essential" ==
 
Another incredibly irritating phrase; "Essential Freedom". Puh-lease, say what you really mean. "Essential" as in it is essential that I find the lost pair to my sock? Essential in the sense of inalienable, never to be breached for what reason whatsoever. I am pretty sure neither is what is meant here. Is it intended to be deliberately ambiguous? Can't a more tightly construeable word be found? -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro]] 16:25, 25 June 2007 (CEST)
 
:They are essential. Without them, the content can not be called free content, which means they're essential to this definition. [[User:Angela Beesley|Angela Beesley]] 16:49, 25 June 2007 (CEST)
 
:Hmmm... the words ''fundamental'' and ''necessary'' come to mind as better alternatives. Possibly there freedoms might be better called "Required Basic Freedoms for Works to Comply to the Definition".
 
--[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 17:19, 26 June 2007 (CEST)
 
::Both "fundamental" and "necessary" sound better, but your last long form suggestion is the best of the lot for my money; even though some may think it is clunky because long, it is better to be clunky and clear than belles lettres and fuzzy on the interpretation. -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro]] 17:11, 27 June 2007 (CEST)
 
==  Defining Free Cultural Works ==
 
I find that the statement: "In order to be considered free, a work must be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status must provide the same essential freedoms enumerated above." does not make it explicit enough that works in the public domain are also free by this definition as the emphasis it on the license. I think it might be reworded so: "For a cultural work to be free its legal status ''must'' provide the required freedoms enumerated above. Works in the Public Domain or those licensed under a recognized [[Licenses|Free Culture License]] have these required freedoms. Works under other licenses which provide ''all'' the required freedoms are also Free Works." --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 04:10, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
 
== Some degree of misunderstanding of the legal situation in many countries ==
 
The following :
:"Works that either have no copyright (thus being in the public domain), or are licensed under a Free Culture License comply with these guidelines."
 
reflects some degree of misunderstanding of the legal situation in many countries, where works can be unprotected by copyright law (thus be "in the public domain"), and yet be unfree. See the discussions we are having presently on Wikimedia Commons about Italian museum artworks or Australian commonwealth reserves, where huge use restrictions exist, while the works are technically in the public domain, as far as copyright law is concerned. Copyright law is not the only law having consequences on the use of works. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] 05:08, 20 November 2008 (EST)
 
== Public domain is not Free ==
 
Regarding [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&diff=5337&oldid=5143 this change]:
 
You can make a derivative of a public domain work that is encumbered, no? 
 
The current rule for Wikipedia text is either free content, fair use content, or public domain content, but that doesn't mean that either fair use or public domain are Free.  It just means they are compatible to be incorporated into Wikipedia.  You can make a derivative of something public domain and release it under a Free license, but you could also release it under a restrictive one, so it does not have the share-alike property defined in the Preamble.  So public domain does not belong in this document? [[wikipedia:User:Omegatron/Non-free_content|Omegatron]] 14:36, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 
:Public Domain is '''free''' but it is not '''copyleft''' because you can make unfree derivatives of public domain works. The same applies to [[CC-BY]].
 
== We need a proper one paragraph summary ==
 
The Summary is not a summary. It is an introduction. It tells you what is coming below.
 
This page desperately needs a one paragraph summary that can be quoted wherever free works are found. As such a one paragraph summary will be widely quoted it is probably the most important paragraph in this wiki but I'm going to have a go anyway.[[User:Joe Raftery|Joe Raftery]] 12:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 
: I seem to have rewritten the whole page. I do think it flows a lot better now. I've taken of the duplication, moved stuff round to flow better. It really does need to be reviewed though. How does it look? [[User:Joe Raftery|Joe Raftery]] 15:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:19, 19 May 2024

* '''[{{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__

== [[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 October 2011 (EDT)

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.
Section 5 "Combining Documents" of the GFDL:
: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.
 
: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.
 
: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".

[[Special:Contributions/171.226.97.137|171.226.97.137]] 07:56, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

: 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)

: 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)

== 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 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.

(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)

:: The libre knowledge definition puts it this way:
<center>
{| class="wikitable" width="50%" 
|
Users of libre knowledge are free to

:(0) use the work for any purpose
:(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs
:(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part
:(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result.
|}
</center>
::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'').

::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)

==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)
::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
Retrieved from "https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=27417"