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!
Licenses: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Tentatively, the following licenses are known to meet the criteria set out by the [[definition]]: | Tentatively, the following licenses are known to meet the criteria set out by the [[definition]]: | ||
* [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution License] | * [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution License] (not free for Debian) | ||
* [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License] | * [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License] (not free for Debian) | ||
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License] when no invariant sections are specified (this is important) | * [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License] when no invariant sections are specified (this is important) | ||
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] | * [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ Free Art License] (not free for Debian) | ||
* All [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html free software licenses]. While many of them are specific to software, some are worded so as to apply to all kinds of digital works. For example, the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU GPL] is often applied to non-software works (such as computer graphics, game scenarios...). | * All [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html free software licenses]. While many of them are specific to software, some are worded so as to apply to all kinds of digital works. For example, the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU GPL] is often applied to non-software works (such as computer graphics, game scenarios...). | ||
Revision as of 17:47, 6 May 2006
Tentatively, the following licenses are known to meet the criteria set out by the definition:
- Creative Commons Attribution License (not free for Debian)
- Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (not free for Debian)
- GNU Free Documentation License when no invariant sections are specified (this is important)
- Free Art License (not free for Debian)
- All free software licenses. While many of them are specific to software, some are worded so as to apply to all kinds of digital works. For example, the GNU GPL is often applied to non-software works (such as computer graphics, game scenarios...).
In addition, works in the public domain are also free content as per the definition.
To be verified:
Controversial:
- Against DRM license - very vague, legally speaking, about what exactly it tries to forbid. If it forbids use even for developing DRM, bundling with DRM, etc., it is not a free content license. Legally speaking, this license uses the same definition of DRM as in European Union Copyright Directive (more informations here).
- IANG license - seeks to enforce lots of things that are outside of the copyright realm (like organization scheme, right of developers to have a voice in the development process, etc.)