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!

Permissible restrictions: Difference between revisions

From Definition of Free Cultural Works
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
m (Reverted edits by Divyanshup (talk) to last revision by Mormegil)
Tag: Rollback
 
(83 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
有一定的要求和限制使用或交換工程,我們覺得不妨礙我們的基本自由[[定義] ] 。這些限制說明如下。
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 are described below.


除了這些允許的限制,牌照''不能''限制條款,包括基本自由。特別是,它''不能''指定任何使用限制(如禁止商業用途的工作,限制使用取決於政治背景,等等)。
Apart from these allowed restrictions, the license ''must not'' include clauses that limit essential freedoms. Especially, ''it must not specify any usage restrictions'' (such as prohibiting commercial use of the work, restricting use depending on political context, etc.).


====歸屬作者/無擔保====
==Attribution of authors / No Endorsement==


歸因保護完整的原創作品,並提供信貸和承認的作家。因此,需要一個許可證可以歸屬作者或作者,提供了這樣的歸屬不妨礙正常使用的工作。例如,它不會被接受的牌照,要求更麻煩的方法顯著的歸屬時,修改後的版本的授權文本分佈。
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.


這種歸屬不應意味著一個由原作者同意的其他人所做的更改。牌照可能的地方限制使用一個作家的商標版本的工作,其他人已被修改。
Such an attribution should not imply an endorsement by the original authors of changes made by others. Licenses may place restrictions on the use of one author's trademarks in versions of the work which have been modified by others.


==== ====自由傳輸
== Transmission of freedoms ==
該許可證可包括一項條款,通常被稱為copyleft的'''' ''股票一樣'',從而確保衍生作品本身保持自由的作品。為此,它可以例如要求所有衍生作品也可在相同的免費許可與原始。 '''強的copyleft '''牌照有最廣泛的定義衍生作品- 只允許修改版本的工作分配與其他自由文化作品。
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 all derivative works are made available under the same free license as the original. '''Strong copyleft''' licenses have the broadest definition of derivative works - only permitting the modified versions of the work to be distributed with other Free Cultural Works.
'''弱的copyleft '''牌照要求修改版本的分發工作,根據同一牌照的原創作品,但允許它分發給與非自由文化作品-例如讓照片授權下自由文化牌要出版文本並非如此。
'''Weak Copyleft''' licenses require modified versions of the work to be distributed under the same license as the original work but allow it to be distributed with non-free cultural works - such as allowing photographs licensed under Free Culture licenses to be published with text which is not. (Licenses without copyleft/share-alike restrictions are called '''permissive''' or '''copyfree'''.)


==== ====保護自由
== Protection of freedoms ==
The license may include clauses that strive to further ensure that the work is a free work: for example, access to ''source code'', or prohibition of ''technical measures'' restricting essential freedoms.


該牌照條款,可能包括進一步努力確保這項工作是一個自由的工作:例如,獲得'' ''源代碼,或禁止'' ''技術措施,限制基本自由。
*  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, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the drawings and parts list of a machine, or any other such information.
* Use of a free format: For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be a format that can only be read using a particular manufacturers programme. Formats should be documented and should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy means that the information will be accessible to everyone, for ever.
* No technical restrictions: The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.
* No other restrictions or limitations: The work itself must not be 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. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.


*供貨源數據:凡已獲得最後的工作,通過彙編或處理的設計資料或源文件或多個源文件,所有基本源數據的同時應提供工作本身在同樣條件下。這可以是一個音樂的分數組成,使用的模型在三維場景中,數據的科學刊物,圖紙和零件清單的機器,或任何其他有關資料。
<div id="Restrictions which are not permissable"></div>
*使用自由格式:數字文件的格式,其中的工作應該是提供一個格式只能讀取使用特定製造商的方案。格式應記錄,而不應以專利保護,除非一個全球性的,無限的,不可撤銷的免版稅津貼是給利用其專利技術。儘管非自由模式有時被用於實際的原因,一個自由格式複製意味著信息將面向所有人,直到永遠。
*沒有技術的限制:必須是工作的形式提供的技術措施,在沒有使用限制的自由上面列舉的。
*沒有其他限制或限制:工作本身不能包括在法律限制(專利,合同等)或限制(如隱私權或因非商業用途),以阻礙自由上面列舉的。使用作品,可以利用現有的法律豁免版權(為了舉出版權的作品),但只有部分是它毫不含糊地自由構成一個自由的工作。


<div id="Restrictions不屬於permissable"> < /分區>
== Restrictions which are not permissible ==
Apart from these allowed restrictions, the license must ''not'' include clauses that limit essential freedoms. Especially, it must not specify any usage restrictions


==限制是不容許的==
====Non Derivatives====
除了這些允許的限制,許可證不得限制條款,包括基本自由。特別是,它必須不指定任何使用限制
非商業==== ====
許可證只允許非商業用途,不列為自由文化許可證。這是因為在實踐中有很多方法可以用來文化工程和重用這將被視為商業。另一個問題是,有一個普遍認同的定義在哪裡邊界線之間的商業及非商業用途的案件下降了很多的灰色地帶之間。在實踐中'''相同方式共享'''或'''的copyleft '''條款提供了一個限制,商業利潤,因為任何再使用謀取暴利將很快刺激一堆模仿者將帶來價格下降,同時鼓勵更廣泛的分佈工程- 這是客觀的自由文化許可證。


==== ====政治
The freedom to make changes and to distribute derivatives -- one of the core freedom at the heart of [[Definition|the definition]] -- is clearly not available to use the users of works under licenses which block or restrict the creation of derivative works. As a result, no license that bars the creation of derivative works without permission can be considered a Free Culture license.
限制,限制使用的作品的原因,其中包括支持原作者厭惡已建議在次。這些限制牌照不被認為是自由文化許可證。在實踐中有這麼多不同的原因,各自有支持者,所以某些工程只能用於特定的其他作品。這意味著任何再使用,必須仔細檢查的課題正是限制。


第三屆世界上唯一==== ====
====Non Commercial====
免費發放的許可證只在貧窮國家已經提出。這些不被視為自由文化許可證。
Licenses which only allow non-commercial use are not considered Free Culture licenses. This is because in practice there are many ways that Cultural works can be used and reused which would be considered commercial. Another problem is that there is no generally agreed definition of where the border line is between Commercial and Non Commercial uses with very many cases falling in the undefined area in between. In practice '''Share Alike''' or '''Copyleft''' clauses provide a restriction on commercial profits since any reuse making excessive profits  will soon stimulate a bunch of copycats which will bring prices down while encouraging even wider distribution of the works - which is the objective of the free culture licenses.


==== ====廣告
==== Political ====
原來的BSD許可證包括一個條款,要求所有廣告的衍生作品,包括一個確認的貢獻原作者。隨著生產的協作與許多作家的作品這將是一個重大的負擔。歸因要求自由文化作品應該比這更簡單。
Restrictions to limit use of works in support of causes which the original author abhors have been proposed at times. Licenses with these restrictions are not considered to be Free Culture licenses. In practice there are so many different causes, each of which has supporters so certain works can only be used with certain other works. This means any reuse must be subject of careful checking of exactly what restrictions apply.
 
====3rd world only ====
Licenses for free distribution in poor countries only  have been proposed. These are not considered Free Culture licenses.
 
====Advertising====
The original BSD license included a clause requiring all advertising for a derivative work to include an acknowledgement of the contribution of the original author. With collaboratively produced works with many authors this would be a significant burden. Attribution requirements for Free Cultural Works should be simpler than this.

Latest revision as of 20:02, 19 February 2022

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 are described below.

Apart from these allowed restrictions, the license must not include clauses that limit essential freedoms. Especially, it must not specify any usage restrictions (such as prohibiting commercial use of the work, restricting use depending on political context, etc.).

Attribution of authors / No Endorsement

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.

Such an attribution should not imply an endorsement by the original authors of changes made by others. Licenses may place restrictions on the use of one author's trademarks in versions of the work which have been modified by others.

Transmission of freedoms

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 all derivative works are made available under the same free license as the original. Strong copyleft licenses have the broadest definition of derivative works - only permitting the modified versions of the work to be distributed with other Free Cultural Works. Weak Copyleft licenses require modified versions of the work to be distributed under the same license as the original work but allow it to be distributed with non-free cultural works - such as allowing photographs licensed under Free Culture licenses to be published with text which is not. (Licenses without copyleft/share-alike restrictions are called permissive or copyfree.)

Protection of freedoms

The license may include clauses that strive to further ensure that the work is a free work: for example, access to source code, or prohibition of technical measures restricting essential freedoms.

  • 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, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the drawings and parts list of a machine, or any other such information.
  • Use of a free format: For digital files, the format in which the work is made available should not be a format that can only be read using a particular manufacturers programme. Formats should be documented and should not be protected by patents, unless a world-wide, unlimited and irrevocable royalty-free grant is given to make use of the patented technology. While non-free formats may sometimes be used for practical reasons, a free format copy means that the information will be accessible to everyone, for ever.
  • No technical restrictions: The work must be available in a form where no technical measures are used to limit the freedoms enumerated above.
  • No other restrictions or limitations: The work itself must not be 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. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work.

Restrictions which are not permissible

Apart from these allowed restrictions, the license must not include clauses that limit essential freedoms. Especially, it must not specify any usage restrictions

Non Derivatives

The freedom to make changes and to distribute derivatives -- one of the core freedom at the heart of the definition -- is clearly not available to use the users of works under licenses which block or restrict the creation of derivative works. As a result, no license that bars the creation of derivative works without permission can be considered a Free Culture license.

Non Commercial

Licenses which only allow non-commercial use are not considered Free Culture licenses. This is because in practice there are many ways that Cultural works can be used and reused which would be considered commercial. Another problem is that there is no generally agreed definition of where the border line is between Commercial and Non Commercial uses with very many cases falling in the undefined area in between. In practice Share Alike or Copyleft clauses provide a restriction on commercial profits since any reuse making excessive profits will soon stimulate a bunch of copycats which will bring prices down while encouraging even wider distribution of the works - which is the objective of the free culture licenses.

Political

Restrictions to limit use of works in support of causes which the original author abhors have been proposed at times. Licenses with these restrictions are not considered to be Free Culture licenses. In practice there are so many different causes, each of which has supporters so certain works can only be used with certain other works. This means any reuse must be subject of careful checking of exactly what restrictions apply.

3rd world only

Licenses for free distribution in poor countries only have been proposed. These are not considered Free Culture licenses.

Advertising

The original BSD license included a clause requiring all advertising for a derivative work to include an acknowledgement of the contribution of the original author. With collaboratively produced works with many authors this would be a significant burden. Attribution requirements for Free Cultural Works should be simpler than this.