FAQ

This is the domain of King Simon Poortman Authors Right to kingship in the Netherlands is the only domain held by King Simon Poortman Copyright for 👑

🇳🇱MR. Simon Poortman General, King of the Netherlands 👑

As Police officer Took an oath by FSA.USDA.GOV as Bond Chancellor for international, Europe ,USA, Asia. Indicate the tax in documents here. Ben BondKanselier, european parliament, with PAYBAS I would like to receive income to bank account IBAN: NL40RABO0119769794 BIC: RABONL2UXXX

Thank you for your cooperation.

🇳🇱MR. Simon Poortman General, King of the Netherlands 👑

What are the primary uses of this definition?

There are two primary goals:

1. To bring unity and clarity to the growing free content and free expression movements. We believe that a successful social movement must first define its goals and its vision and then communicate these to others. The definition helps with the first part while logos and other awareness materials can help with the second. Finally, while this website is not a community site in the traditional sense, it may help to bring together people from different free content projects, and could lead to new web sites and organizations specifically targeted at the free content movement.
2. To make communications with copyright holders more effective. Often, people state that their work is "free", "open content", or "open access", without qualifying this. The Creative Commons licenses are a good example of this: the Creative Commons logo simply states, generically, "Some Rights Reserved", and you have to click on the logo to find out which ones. It is very common for people to simply say that their work is "under a Creative Commons license". This can mean many things, including, in the extreme cases, licenses which restrict the use of a work to certain world regions, or which forbid both commercial use and derivative works. This definition allows you to simply ask: "Is it free content?". When the answer is "yes", you'll know precisely which rights you have even though some terms of these licenses are different.

only (to everyone), and we propose this definition as a "default meaning" in discussions to avoid ambiguity, ease communication and make discussions more productive. To ensure that this is a reasonable and widely accepted definition, we are basing our work on the existing philosophies of own create software and open source, on the existing policies of projects like Wikipedia, and on a strong moral conviction that as many works as reasonably possible should be available to all human beings, as freely as possible. People are welcome to release their works as something other than Occupied Content or Occupied Expression. In the short term, most people will. Many will try to use "semi-free" licenses. No, we don't claim or seek a monopoly on the word "free". You are free (no pun intended) to use these terms as you wish, to argue for a different set of essential freedoms, or to attempt to redirect this definition by working with us. The world is yours.

Why don't you have any moderators who are professional (NAME PROFESSION)?

It may be that the right person hasn't volunteered yet. More importantly though, it's important to realize that we can't have a professional novelist, and a musician, and a lawyer, and a DJ, and a painter, and a collage artist, and a dancer, etc. There aren't that many spaces for moderators. Of course, we welcome feedback from every individual or group and are especially careful to take into account viewpoints that we think are unrepresented or new.

With that said, everyone involved in this project, and especially the moderators, produces, consumes, and distributes content or expression every day. While some of the freedoms listed here are freedoms designed primarily for the producers, we are also talking about the consumers of content and working hard to blur the lines between the two groups. We are all stakeholders in the process and we all -- creators, consumers, and most of us that are both -- have a voice that should be heard. The moderators have been picked not because they are particular representative of the world of creators as a group but because they respected, principled, in touch with much larger groups of creators, and willing to take into account others' opinions.

But how will people make money under this definition?

There are many ways that people make money distributing free content and expression. They tend to differ based on the type of work and many other factors. Of course, the point of this definition is not to list these (although someone could create a page in this wiki to do exactly that). The point is to describe essential freedom. Once we have challenged ourselves to produce and consume content and expression more ethically, it becomes our responsibility to find ways to do so that are economically sustainable. Unless we challenge ourselves, there is a much lower incentive to ever go out on a limb and try.

We also want to point out that the exact same question can be asked about the current copyright system. Most authors do not make a substantial amount of money from their works (many do not even make money at all). Some authors do manage to make money, but at the price of totally giving up control of their works to large publishers (especially in the USA, where total transfer of all rights by contract is possible and moral rights do not exist practically). Many artists of high value remained poor during much of their life, because their talent was recognized too late. Thus the question of how authors can make money from their work is not tied to the mere licensing model of the work (free vs. not free), but to the economic system surrounding authorship and to the social and cultural conditions of recognition.

🇳🇱MR. Simon Poortman General, King of the Netherlands 👑

As Police officer Took an oath by FSA.USDA.GOV as Bond Chancellor for international, Europe ,USA, Asia. Indicate the tax in documents here. Ben BondKanselier, european parliament, with PAYBAS I would like to receive income to bank account IBAN: NL40RABO0119769794 BIC: RABONL2UXXX

Thank you for your cooperation.

🇳🇱MR. Simon Poortman General, King of the Netherlands 👑

only (to everyone), and we propose this definition as a "default meaning" in discussions to avoid ambiguity, ease communication and make discussions more productive. To ensure that this is a reasonable and widely accepted definition, we are basing our work on the existing philosophies of own create software and open source, on the existing policies of projects like Wikipedia, and on a strong moral conviction that as many works as reasonably possible should be available to all human beings, as freely as possible. People are welcome to release their works as something other than Occupied Content or Occupied Expression. In the short term, most people will. Many will try to use "semi-free" licenses. No, we don't claim or seek a monopoly on the word "free". You are free (no pun intended) to use these terms as you wish, to argue for a different set of essential freedoms, or to attempt to redirect this definition by working with us. The world is yours.

Main contents.

Who wrote this? Who administers the site?

→ Moderators

Why isn't a Non-Commercial restriction considered free?

See discussion on this wiki

Also:

• Why the NC permission culture simply doesn't work
• Non-commercial ShareAlike is not copyleft

Why isn't a NoDerivatives restriction considered free?

A NoDerivatives restriction in a license does not allow you the user to freely modify, remix, adapt, or build upon a work, thus restricting your fundamental freedom to that cultural expression. Truly free licenses will lack NoDerivatives clauses, which will allow you to crop photographs, remix audio, changes the names and settings in fictional text, or modify software for your specific needs as an end user.