|
|
Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| : I strongly disagree. There is no higher degree of freedom than the absence of copyright. To argue that the works of Shakespeare are not ''libre'' because they are not under a copyleft license is bizarre to me. This is also in line with the [[definition]], which permits copyleft, but does not require it.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 15:45, 5 March 2007 (CET) | | : I strongly disagree. There is no higher degree of freedom than the absence of copyright. To argue that the works of Shakespeare are not ''libre'' because they are not under a copyleft license is bizarre to me. This is also in line with the [[definition]], which permits copyleft, but does not require it.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 15:45, 5 March 2007 (CET) |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Erik. | | Thanks Erik. Some comments: [[Discussion of copyleft]] |
| Are there differences between free software, free culture and free knowledge?
| |
| We seem to be basing the definitions on free software - but is there a point where the analogy does not quite hold? Or where we might need to take a stronger stand on copyleft (for example)?
| |
| | |
| The [http://creativecommons.org Creative Commons] (concerned with free culture) offers a range of licenses whose degrees of freedom vary, and there is a compatibility gap when we consider freedom to mix (key to free culture).
| |
| | |
| Derek Keats once explained this to me as follows:
| |
| | |
| Here are some CC licenses with most restrictive on the left, least restrictive on the right:
| |
| | |
| (C)----[BY-ND----NC----BY-SA----BY]----[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ PD]
| |
| | |
| Now imagine over this continuum above a skewed distribution "degree of freedom" peaking at "BY-SA".
| |
| | |
| For mixing content there is a compatibility gap:
| |
| | |
| (C)----[BY-ND----NC--|COMPATIBILITY GAP|--BY-SA----BY]----[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ PD].
| |
| | |
| Copyleft contributes a lot to the free culture goal.
| |
| | |
| Regarding free software we find [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware non-copylefted free software].
| |
| [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware Public domain software] is [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware non-copylefted free software] - "some copies or modified versions may not be free at all".
| |
| | |
| For culture it seems to make sense to have a continuum of Creative Commons licenses.
| |
| | |
| For software we have [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#FreeSoftware free] and [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#non-freeSoftware non-free] software and permit [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware non-copylefted free software] while preferring [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#CopyleftedSoftware CopyleftedSoftware] as it supports the goal of giving ''every'' user (now and in future) the freedoms implied by the term "free software".
| |
| | |
| Again, copyleft contributes much to the cause.
| |
| | |
| <small>(Though rms has recently confirmed that the free software definition does not (and ''should not'') ''require'' copyleft). </small>
| |
| | |
| For free knowledge, the intent is for the knowledge to be free/libre - that the users are free to re-use, build upon and share (alike?) any knowledge they gain from a knowledge resource. Public Domain and Attribution allow the next user to lock up the knowledge in a restrictive derived work.
| |
| | |
| Is there a case to elevate the status of copyleft? Is copyleft only needed on account of the inappropriate status of copyright in the networked world of blogging, wikis, ... - the global copy/mix/share read-write culture (where the role of publishers is not so crucial for knowledge dissemination)?
| |
| | |
| [[User:Ktucker|Kim]] 11:55, 12 March 2007 (CET)
| |
Hi. Just an idea about the buttons: Please make it more international, by using symbols instead of text (like Attribution, Share-Alike). Regards--77.234.80.162 23:18, 16 February 2007 (CET)
Should we avoid duplicating Creative Commons work? - and focus on icons for free/libre content? - e.g. CC-By and Public Domain are arguably non-free/libre - as both allow derived works (such as translations and localisations) to be released under more restrictive licenses. Kim 13:48, 5 March 2007 (CET)
- I strongly disagree. There is no higher degree of freedom than the absence of copyright. To argue that the works of Shakespeare are not libre because they are not under a copyleft license is bizarre to me. This is also in line with the definition, which permits copyleft, but does not require it.--Erik Möller 15:45, 5 March 2007 (CET)
Thanks Erik. Some comments: Discussion of copyleft