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
Erik Möller (talk | contribs) m (remove ref to "text below") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
=====I don-t believe this definition of atribution===== | |||
Attribution is an ambiguos right up to the extent it can-t be accuretely especified for protecting freedom fully, "attribution permited under copyright law" or "the derivated have less or same attribution than the original" as a maximum but i don-t like it either, it leaves the original work with a privative, cos of a bloat in it, chance. | |||
This makes the cc all nonfree as none, including the bysa, have this. It was their choice to use the marketing of cuting the defensive towards freedoms authors which leaves the freedom in a secondary place. Even the gpl d3 has in its additional this wrong idea, hope it doesn-t go to a further draft. | |||
What for further attribution than the credits, copyright notices, the specified changes and "even" endorsements(removed in derivates) and dedications(removed at derivator user choice)? Is it trying to convince the defensive towards freedom author that atribution will cute him/her? | |||
Sorry about the tone, its just for helping understanding my point, thanks. | |||
==== Transmission of freedoms ==== | ==== Transmission of freedoms ==== | ||
Revision as of 20:24, 31 May 2007
There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel 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
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.
I don-t believe this definition of atribution
Attribution is an ambiguos right up to the extent it can-t be accuretely especified for protecting freedom fully, "attribution permited under copyright law" or "the derivated have less or same attribution than the original" as a maximum but i don-t like it either, it leaves the original work with a privative, cos of a bloat in it, chance. This makes the cc all nonfree as none, including the bysa, have this. It was their choice to use the marketing of cuting the defensive towards freedoms authors which leaves the freedom in a secondary place. Even the gpl d3 has in its additional this wrong idea, hope it doesn-t go to a further draft.
What for further attribution than the credits, copyright notices, the specified changes and "even" endorsements(removed in derivates) and dedications(removed at derivator user choice)? Is it trying to convince the defensive towards freedom author that atribution will cute him/her?
Sorry about the tone, its just for helping understanding my point, thanks.
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.
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.