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

From Definition of Free Cultural Works
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(reverted to older version due to vandalism from User:Kush06)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Comparison of Licenses ==


== ''यदि बिल गेट्स बॉलीवुड फिल्में बनाने लगें तो उनकी फिल्मों के नाम कैसे होंगे ?


जरा इन नामों पर गौर फरमाएं - ==
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1" style="width: 100%; text-align: center; border-collapse: collapse;"
''
! License
! [[#Intended scope|Intended scope]]
! [[#Copyleft|Copyleft]]
! [[#Practical modifiability|Practical modifiability]]
! [[#Attribution|Attribution]]
! [[#Related rights|Related rights]]
! [[#Access control prohibition|Access control prohibition]]
! [[#Worldwide applicability|Worldwide applicability]]
|-
| [[#Against DRM|Against DRM]]
| Works of art
| {{yes|Normal}}
| {{no}}
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}
| {{yes|Granted}}
| {{yes|Licensor & Licensee}}
| Exact translations
|-
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution|Creative Commons Attribution]]
| Generic
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}
| {{no}}
| {{yes}}
| National adaptations
|-
| [[#Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike|Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike]]
| Generic
| {{yes|Normal}}
| {{no}}
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}
| {{no}}
| {{yes}}
| National adaptations
|-
| [[#Design Science License|Design Science License]]
| Generic, optimally science data
| {{yes|Normal}}
| {{yes}}
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| Same license (English version)
|-
| [[#Free Art License|Free Art License]]
| Works of art
| {{yes|Normal}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| Exact translations (French law)
|-
| [[#FreeBSD Documentation License|FreeBSD Documentation License]]
| Documentation
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| Same license (English version)
|-
| [[#GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]]
| Documentation
| {{yes|Normal}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| Same license (English version)
|-
| [[#GNU Lesser General Public License|GNU Lesser General Public License]]
| Generic, optimally Software
| {{partial|Weak}}
| {{yes}}
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| Same license (English version)
|-
| [[#GNU General Public License|GNU General Public License]]
| Generic, optimally Software
| {{yes|Strong}}
| {{yes}}
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}
| {{yes}}
| {{partial|Version 3 prohibits "Tivoisation" in certain cases}}
| Same license (English version)
|-
| [[#Lizenz für Freie Inhalte|Lizenz für Freie Inhalte]]
| Generic
| {{yes|Normal}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| Unknown (license text is German)
|-
| [[#MIT License|MIT License]]
| Software
| {{no}}
| {{yes}}
| {{partial|Copyright notice}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| Same license (English version)
|}


1. Hang To Hona Hi Tha !!!!!!!!!!!!
== Criteria for choosing a license ==


We explain hereafter some of the criteria which may influence your choice of a free content license. Those criteria are not inherently good or bad. The importance of each criteria depends on the context (for example the kind of work, or the kind of collaborative process you want to encourage), and on personal preferences.


This list is not meant to be exhaustive. Other aspects may be important, like the clarity of the wording of a license, or the philosophy which is defended by its authors, or whether the license is surrounded by an active community of authors.


2. Meri Disc Tumhare Paas Hai
Endly, we want to stress that, '''before choosing a license, you must read the license text carefully.''' No summary, no matter how attractive or reassuring, can replace detailed understanding of the license itself.


=== Intended scope ===


Some licenses strive to be as generic as is humanly (or rather, legally) possible. Others deliberately focus on a specific domain of creation, like software, or documentation. When a license has such a focus, it doesn't mean that it cannot be used for other kinds of works, but that its main area of use (and thus its social recognition as a trustable license) is clearly bounded.


3. Aao Chat Kare
For example, the GNU GPL can be used for many kinds of works, but its main area of recognition is software.


=== Copyleft ===


[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sa.svg|48px]]


4. Programmer No.1
When a work is "copylefted", it means all derived works (even if they mix in other works as well) must be distributed under the same terms (usually the same exact license) as the original work. Conversely, a non-copylefted work can be distributed under different terms, and even be rendered non-free.


Therefore, using a copyleft license pretty much guarantees that users of subsequent works (for example modified copies) will be granted the same essential freedoms. On the other hand, a copyleft license can also limit opportunities for re-use, because most copyleft licenses are not compatible between each other. This is why people sometimes prefer non-copyleft license, depending on the work and the kind of practices they want to encourage.


''ShareAlike'' is a synonym of ''copyleft'' in the Creative Commons vocabulary.


5. Mera Naam Developer
Strong copyleft also forbids linking or integration the subject work into larger works/projects that are not also licensed with a license with compatible copyleft terms.  Weak copyleft lacks such a 'viral copyleft' requirement.


=== Practical modifiability ===


[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_sc.svg|48px]]


6. Java Wale Job Le Jayenge
Although all free licenses give you the ''legal'' right to modify, not all of them try to specify how modifiability of the work is ''practically'' enforced. [[Source Code|Requiring modifiability]] is important, especially for works which can be distributed under a completely opaque format such as software binary code (''"object code"'').


The licenses which require practical modifiability usually define a notion of ''source code'', ''source data'' or similar. The GNU FDL defines ''transparent copies'' and disallows use of technological protection measures (TPM). The Creative Commons licenses disallow use of TPMs.


=== Attribution ===


7. Hum Apke Memory Mein Rehte Hein
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_by.svg|48px]]


Requiring attribution means that authorship for the work must be recognized in any circumstances. In the context of derived works (modified copies), this includes the initial as well as subsequent authors and contributors.


It is often stated that all licenses can implicitly require attribution, as they mandate that the copyright notice must be kept intact when distributing copies. By including up-to-date authorship information in the copyright notice, one can indeed forbid subsequent works to erase that information. However, future contributions to the work are not guaranteed to be also credited using such a mechanism; indeed, it is based on the good will of authors (or maintainers) of subsequent works. Having an Attribution requirement prevents this from happening and mandates that all subsequent works have the same policy in mentioning authorship.


8. Do Processor Baarah Terminal
Attribution is a double-edged sword, as it may become a heavy burden to list all contributors for projects which imply seamless and massive collaboration (like Wikipedia). For many works it is, however, a reasonable requirement.


=== Related rights ===
[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_rr.svg|48px]]


''Related rights'' concern not the mere copying and modification of the work, but its use in a derived manner: for example, performing the work, displaying it in public or private, broadcasting, webcasting, etc. Related rights exist for various areas of creation (songs, theater...); they often belong to people other than the authors of the work, such as perfomers, producers of phonograms, etc.


9. Tera Code Chal Gaya
Some free content licenses take care to also grant related rights to the recipient of the work. There may even be a [[#Copyleft|copyleft]] provision which states that related works (interpretations, performances, recordings) must be released under the same license as the work.


=== Access control prohibition ===


[[Image:Fd_sq_icon_drm.svg|48px]]


10. Har Din Jo Mail Karega
Some licenses contain a clause, which forbids to control access to the licensed content.
In some licenses this clause concerns only the licensee (licensor can use access control systems to forbid not granted rights).


→ [[w:Digital rights management|DRM]]
<!-- please choose the Disambiguation of: [[w:TPM]] -->


=== Worldwide applicability ===


11. Network Ke Us Paar
When distributing a free work over the world, it is important to understand how people from other countries will be able to reuse this work.


License writers have adopted three different strategies regarding the internationalization of their licenses:
* ''same license for everyone'': only the original license text (often in English) is given legal value, and translations may be provided purely for information purposes;
* ''exact translations'': translations of the original license text are provided, which all have legal value; those translations have exactly the same clauses and wording as the original text;
* ''local adaptations'': the license is rewritten according to each national legal system.


'''Attention: some licenses use a specific national law: so you cannot interpret the license through your national law, but through the law specified in the license.'''
For example, Free Art License uses French law (you must pay attention to French law also if the license is written in English, German or other languages).


12. Debugging Koi Khel Nahi
The two first schemes ensure that everyone is given the same rights. In the third scheme (local adaptations), similarity and equivalence of the different versions should be carefully examined.


According to advocates of the adaptation scheme, licenses must be rewritten in order to cope with the peculiarities of the various legal systems. This position is held by the Creative Commons organization.


 
According to opponents of the adaptation scheme, having different national versions of a license presents the risk to break trust and interoperability. Also, they stress that the [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works] provides a framework which, with careful drafting, allows to write internationally applicable license texts. This position is held by the Free Software Foundation and by the Free Art License authors.
13. Jish Desh Mein Bill Gates Rehta Hai
 
 
 
14. Raju Ban Gaya MCSE .!
 
 
 
15. Client Ek Numbari Programmer Dus Numbari
 
 
 
16. Login Karo Sajana
 
 
 
17. Naukar PC Ka
 
 
 
18. 1942 -- A Bug Story
 
 
 
19. Kaho Na Virus Hai
 
 
 
20. Crash Se Crash Tak
 
 
 
21. Haan Maine Bhi Debug Kiya Hai


== List of licenses ==
== List of licenses ==


KUSH KUMAR IIMT SAYING THIS INFORMATION:-
=== Against DRM ===


* current version: 2.0
* author: [http://www.freecreations.org Free Creations]
* reference URL (English): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2.html
* reference URL (Italian): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_it.html
* reference URL (Spanish - Castilian): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_es1.html
* reference URL (Spanish - Catalan): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_es2.html
* reference URL (French): http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_fr.html


भैँस चालीसा
=== BSD-like non-copyleft licenses ===


महामूर्ख दरबार मेँ लगा अनोखा केस
In parallel with the set of GNU licenses (including the [[#GNU GPL|GNU GPL]]), the [[Existing Movements#Free Software|free software]] world evolved a number of very simple non-copyleft licenses. These licenses are so simple that no dedicated text is needed to expose the terms of the license. To reuse such a license, you must take its text and replace the copyright notice with your own. Since these licenses are non-copyleft, changing the license text in such a way does not prevent reuse between works from happening.
फँसा हुआ है मामला, अकल बड़ी या भैँस
अकल बड़ी या भैँस, दलीलेँ बहुत सी आईँ
महामूर्ख दरबार की अब देखो सुनवाई


मंगल भवन अमंगल हारी, भैँस सदा ही अकल पे भारी
Regardless of their wording, these licenses always grant the user very broad rights, including the right to modify and distribute without supplying any source code. Also, their concise wording makes them simple to understand and unambiguous as to their effects.
भैँस मेरी जब चर आये चारा, 5 सेर हम दूध निकारा
कोई अकल ना यह कर पावे, चारा खाकर दूध बनावे
अकल घास जब चरने जाए, हार जाय नर अति दुःख पावे
भैँस का चारा लालू खायो, निज घरवाली सी.एम. बनवायो
तुमहू भैँस का चारा खाओ, बीवी को सी.एम. बनवाओ
मोटी अकल मंदमति होई, मोटी भैँस दूध अति होई
अकल इश्क कर कर के रोए, भैँस का कोई ब्वायफ्रेँड ना होवे
अकल तो ले मोबाइल घुमे, SMS पा पा कर झुमे
भैँस मेरी डायरेक्ट पुकारे, कबहू मिस्ड काल ना मारे
भैँस कभी सिगरेट ना पीती, भैँस बिना दारु के जीती
भैँस कभी ना पान चबाए, ना ही इसको ड्रग्स सुहाए
शक्तिशाली शाकाहारी भैँस हमारी कितनी प्यारी
अकलमन्द को कोई ना जाने, भैँस को सारा जग पहचाने
जाकी अकल मे गोबर होए सो इन्सान पटक सर रोए
मंगल भवन अमंगल हारी, भैस का गोबर अकल पर भारी
भैँस मरे तो बनते जूते, अकल मरे तो पड़ते जूते।


Now you can decide
These licenses are often called "BSD-like" because the first occurence of such a license has been the license under which the Berkeley Software Distribution (one of the first free versions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix Unix]) was shipped to users.
अकल बड़ी या भैँस


KUSH KUMAR TO SAYING FOR INFORMATION FRIEND:-
One should distinguish the original BSD license with its controversial ''[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html advertising clause]'' from the revised BSD license that does not have the advertising clause.


=== Creative Commons Attribution ===


कहाँ रोज रोज मिलती है वजह यूँ इस तरह पास हमारे आने की,
* Aliases: CC-BY
कुछ देर और ठहरो कि आँखों ने इजाजत नहीं दी है अभी जाने की I
* Current version: 3.0
 
 
क्या जरूरत है शर्म-ओ-हया को, लबों पर इस तरह पहरा बिठाने की,
ग़र आँखों की जुबां समझो तो बात नहीं कुछ और तुम्हें बताने की I
 
कैद कर लेंगे इन आँखों में हम उनको जिन्हें आदत थी छुप जाने की,
आखिर कुछ तो सजा मिलनी ही चाहिए चुपचाप दिल में उतर आने की I
 
तस्सवुर में खोई रहती थी ये आँखें, फुरसत कहाँ थी इन्हें छलक जाने की,
क्यों फिर अब भर आई हैं, जबसे खबर मिली है चाँद निकल आने की I
 
तन्हाइयों में तो सुना करते थे हम आवाज़ें सिर्फ वक्त के करहाने की,
पंख से क्यों लग गये हैं उसको, आहट जब से हुई है उनके आने की I
 
धड़कने खामोश हैं, साँसें थम गई हैं वजह क्या है जुबां के लड़खड़ाने की,
कुछ तो कहो इरादा-ए-कत्ल है या कि आदत है तुम्हें यूँ ही मुस्कुराने की
 
LOVE STORY BY KUSH KUMAR


=== Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike ===


 
* Aliases: CC-BY-SA
CUTE LOVE STORY- A BOY HAD CANCER AND HE HAD ONE MONTH TO LIVE.
* Current version: 3.0
HE LIKED A GIRL WORKING IN A CD SHOP VERY MUCH. BUT HE DID NOT
<!-- <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
TELL HER ABOUT HIS LUV. EVERYDAY HE WENT TO THE CD SHOP AND
<Work rdf:about="urn:sha1:XCKBXFCIAIKUOW2D5JXEH3C5GFHUVHHL"><dc:date>2008</dc:date><dc:title>yung buttah</dc:title><dc:description></dc:description><dc:rights><Agent><dc:title>intro</dc:title></Agent></dc:rights><dc:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Sound" /><license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/" /></Work>
BOUGHT A CD ONLY TO TALK TO HER. AFTER A MONTH HE DIED.
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/"><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution" /><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/DerivativeWorks" /><prohibits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/CommercialUse" /><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/ShareAlike" /><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice" /></License>
WHEN THE GIRL WENT TO HIS PLACE AND ASKED ABOUT HIM,
</rdf:RDF> -->
HIS MOM TOLD THAT HE DIED AND TOOK HER TO HIS ROOM.....................................
SHE SAW ALL THE CD'S UNOPENED ............... THE GIRL CRIED N CRIED N FINALLY DIED.
YOU KNOW Y SHE CRIED?
ÇOZ SHE HAD KEPT HER OWN LUV LETTERS INSIDE THE CD PACKS.
SHE ALSO LUVED HIM...........
moral of the story: if u love someone...tell him/her directly don't wait for
destiny to play the role.....


=== Design Science License ===
=== Design Science License ===
Line 211: Line 279:
AFAIK only used by the german portal neppstar for free music and video. Anyway, it seems to be a valid free license.
AFAIK only used by the german portal neppstar for free music and video. Anyway, it seems to be a valid free license.


first  |  < previous  |  next >  |  last
=== MIT License ===
8:47 am (2 hours ago)
***Dev***:
 
 
ScrapU
Nov 7 (2 days ago)
ミ★αмιтєѕн★彡:
B.Tech STUDENT वो है जो पक गया है ....
 
THEORY और PRACTICAL की पढाए में
CONCEPT की गहराई में
PROJECT WORK की लडाई में
 
B.Tech STUDENT वो है जो फस गया है ....
 
कैम्पस INTERVIEWS के जन्झाल में
DOOBTI COMPANIES की चाल में
INTERNALS AUR External की मार में
 
B.Tech STUDENT वो है जो.....
 
LUNCH TIME में BREAKFAST करता है
DINNER TIME में LUNCH करता है
3 AM को PRESENTATION BANATE HUE JUICE पीता है
 
B.Tech STUDENT वो है जो पागल है.....
 
Noodles और कैंटीन की कोल्ड्रिंक के PYAR में
KISI से KUCH कहने के विचार में
MOVIES के COLLECTION में
गर्लफ्रेंड के POSSESION में
 
B.Tech STUDENT वही है जो
SEMESTER के STARTING में मज़े करता है
exam के एक रात पहेले में ही पढाई करता है
SUBMISSIONS हमेशा DEADLINES के बाद करता है
EXAMS के एक दिन पहले भी ORKUT पे ONLINE मिलता है.....
Nov 1
Manish:
zinda ho ya nai agar ya to scrap karo beta profile hi dekhne se kam nai chalega ok
Oct 26
Yogesh:
 
 
ScrapU
Oct 21
Manish:
Free Orkut and MySpace cool pics Graphics Glitters
click to get More Cool Pics Comments & Graphics
Oct 17
Mukesh Rajput:
HAPPY DIWALI
Oct 17
Harsh:


More
* author: MIT
* reference URL: [http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/mit-license.php http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/mit-license.php]


OrkutUncle.com Cute Flash scraps
This license is arguably the simplest form of the BSD-like licenses for software. All the license, except for the no-warranty statement, is condensed in two short paragraphs.
Oct 13
Manish:
hiiii dekh mai aa hi gaya na vaise to plan nahi tha but phir kuchh socha
Oct 13
IDL Club Rath:
Oct 12
Do Not Harm.....:
I WISH TO H@PPY DIW@LI U @ND UY F@MILY///////////////////////////////////////


There are variants, like the [http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php current BSD license] which has an additional provision forbidding endorsement of derived works using the name of the original authors.


ScrapU
=== Commentary on non-free licenses ===
first  |  < previous  |  next >  |  last


KUSHSMART.110MB.COM THIS ME SITE CREATED MY ME
* [[Licenses/NC|Essay about the Creative Commons non-commercial restriction]]

Revision as of 09:12, 12 November 2009

Comparison of Licenses

License Intended scope Copyleft Practical modifiability Attribution Related rights Access control prohibition Worldwide applicability
Against DRM Works of art Normal No Copyright notice Granted Licensor & Licensee Exact translations
Creative Commons Attribution Generic No No Copyright notice No Yes National adaptations
Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike Generic Normal No Copyright notice No Yes National adaptations
Design Science License Generic, optimally science data Normal Yes Copyright notice No No Same license (English version)
Free Art License Works of art Normal Yes Yes Yes Yes Exact translations (French law)
FreeBSD Documentation License Documentation Yes Yes Copyright notice Yes Yes Same license (English version)
GNU Free Documentation License Documentation Normal Yes Yes Yes Yes Same license (English version)
GNU Lesser General Public License Generic, optimally Software Weak Yes Copyright notice Yes Yes Same license (English version)
GNU General Public License Generic, optimally Software Strong Yes Copyright notice Yes Version 3 prohibits "Tivoisation" in certain cases Same license (English version)
Lizenz für Freie Inhalte Generic Normal Yes Yes Yes Yes Unknown (license text is German)
MIT License Software No Yes Copyright notice Yes Yes Same license (English version)

Criteria for choosing a license

We explain hereafter some of the criteria which may influence your choice of a free content license. Those criteria are not inherently good or bad. The importance of each criteria depends on the context (for example the kind of work, or the kind of collaborative process you want to encourage), and on personal preferences.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive. Other aspects may be important, like the clarity of the wording of a license, or the philosophy which is defended by its authors, or whether the license is surrounded by an active community of authors.

Endly, we want to stress that, before choosing a license, you must read the license text carefully. No summary, no matter how attractive or reassuring, can replace detailed understanding of the license itself.

Intended scope

Some licenses strive to be as generic as is humanly (or rather, legally) possible. Others deliberately focus on a specific domain of creation, like software, or documentation. When a license has such a focus, it doesn't mean that it cannot be used for other kinds of works, but that its main area of use (and thus its social recognition as a trustable license) is clearly bounded.

For example, the GNU GPL can be used for many kinds of works, but its main area of recognition is software.

Copyleft

When a work is "copylefted", it means all derived works (even if they mix in other works as well) must be distributed under the same terms (usually the same exact license) as the original work. Conversely, a non-copylefted work can be distributed under different terms, and even be rendered non-free.

Therefore, using a copyleft license pretty much guarantees that users of subsequent works (for example modified copies) will be granted the same essential freedoms. On the other hand, a copyleft license can also limit opportunities for re-use, because most copyleft licenses are not compatible between each other. This is why people sometimes prefer non-copyleft license, depending on the work and the kind of practices they want to encourage.

ShareAlike is a synonym of copyleft in the Creative Commons vocabulary.

Strong copyleft also forbids linking or integration the subject work into larger works/projects that are not also licensed with a license with compatible copyleft terms. Weak copyleft lacks such a 'viral copyleft' requirement.

Practical modifiability

Although all free licenses give you the legal right to modify, not all of them try to specify how modifiability of the work is practically enforced. Requiring modifiability is important, especially for works which can be distributed under a completely opaque format such as software binary code ("object code").

The licenses which require practical modifiability usually define a notion of source code, source data or similar. The GNU FDL defines transparent copies and disallows use of technological protection measures (TPM). The Creative Commons licenses disallow use of TPMs.

Attribution

Requiring attribution means that authorship for the work must be recognized in any circumstances. In the context of derived works (modified copies), this includes the initial as well as subsequent authors and contributors.

It is often stated that all licenses can implicitly require attribution, as they mandate that the copyright notice must be kept intact when distributing copies. By including up-to-date authorship information in the copyright notice, one can indeed forbid subsequent works to erase that information. However, future contributions to the work are not guaranteed to be also credited using such a mechanism; indeed, it is based on the good will of authors (or maintainers) of subsequent works. Having an Attribution requirement prevents this from happening and mandates that all subsequent works have the same policy in mentioning authorship.

Attribution is a double-edged sword, as it may become a heavy burden to list all contributors for projects which imply seamless and massive collaboration (like Wikipedia). For many works it is, however, a reasonable requirement.

Related rights

Related rights concern not the mere copying and modification of the work, but its use in a derived manner: for example, performing the work, displaying it in public or private, broadcasting, webcasting, etc. Related rights exist for various areas of creation (songs, theater...); they often belong to people other than the authors of the work, such as perfomers, producers of phonograms, etc.

Some free content licenses take care to also grant related rights to the recipient of the work. There may even be a copyleft provision which states that related works (interpretations, performances, recordings) must be released under the same license as the work.

Access control prohibition

Some licenses contain a clause, which forbids to control access to the licensed content. In some licenses this clause concerns only the licensee (licensor can use access control systems to forbid not granted rights).

→ DRM

Worldwide applicability

When distributing a free work over the world, it is important to understand how people from other countries will be able to reuse this work.

License writers have adopted three different strategies regarding the internationalization of their licenses:

  • same license for everyone: only the original license text (often in English) is given legal value, and translations may be provided purely for information purposes;
  • exact translations: translations of the original license text are provided, which all have legal value; those translations have exactly the same clauses and wording as the original text;
  • local adaptations: the license is rewritten according to each national legal system.

Attention: some licenses use a specific national law: so you cannot interpret the license through your national law, but through the law specified in the license. For example, Free Art License uses French law (you must pay attention to French law also if the license is written in English, German or other languages).

The two first schemes ensure that everyone is given the same rights. In the third scheme (local adaptations), similarity and equivalence of the different versions should be carefully examined.

According to advocates of the adaptation scheme, licenses must be rewritten in order to cope with the peculiarities of the various legal systems. This position is held by the Creative Commons organization.

According to opponents of the adaptation scheme, having different national versions of a license presents the risk to break trust and interoperability. Also, they stress that the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works provides a framework which, with careful drafting, allows to write internationally applicable license texts. This position is held by the Free Software Foundation and by the Free Art License authors.

List of licenses

Against DRM

BSD-like non-copyleft licenses

In parallel with the set of GNU licenses (including the GNU GPL), the free software world evolved a number of very simple non-copyleft licenses. These licenses are so simple that no dedicated text is needed to expose the terms of the license. To reuse such a license, you must take its text and replace the copyright notice with your own. Since these licenses are non-copyleft, changing the license text in such a way does not prevent reuse between works from happening.

Regardless of their wording, these licenses always grant the user very broad rights, including the right to modify and distribute without supplying any source code. Also, their concise wording makes them simple to understand and unambiguous as to their effects.

These licenses are often called "BSD-like" because the first occurence of such a license has been the license under which the Berkeley Software Distribution (one of the first free versions of Unix) was shipped to users.

One should distinguish the original BSD license with its controversial advertising clause from the revised BSD license that does not have the advertising clause.

Creative Commons Attribution

  • Aliases: CC-BY
  • Current version: 3.0

Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike

  • Aliases: CC-BY-SA
  • Current version: 3.0

Design Science License

FreeBSD Documentation License

Although especially written for the FreeBSD project, this license shows you how to draft a very simple non-copyleft license for documentation works.

Free Art License

GNU Free Documentation License

Invariant sections

Invariant sections are a special provision of the GFDL which, if used, prevent anyone from modifying the parts of the work which are defined as "invariant". The Free Software Foundation finds it useful to protect some special "non-functional" parts of the work, like a statement of intent (the motivation for invariant sections was, allegedly, to prevent the GNU Manifesto to be removed or modified in GNU documentations).

We believe, however, that freedom should apply to all kind of works, and that what is "functional" in one situation can be "artistic" in another - and vice-versa. Consequently, a work using invariant sections to forbid some kinds of modifications to the work cannot be considered completely free.

Unless additional permissions are granted, all FDL works contain unmodifiable sections which aren't called Invariant Sections, such as a copy of the license embedded in the document itself.

GNU General Public License

The GNU GPL is, according to various statistics, probably the most used free software license. It was also the first license to implement the concept of copyleft, guaranteeing that "GPL'ed" free software cannot become, or take part in, non-free software.

Although the GPL is primarily intended for software programs, it is worded so as to apply to many different kinds of works. The main condition for the GPL to be applicable to a type of work is that it admits the notion of a preferred form of a work for making modifications to it (be it source code in a computer language, music score notation, digital graphics under a format retaining structure, etc.). For example, there are many occurences of text or graphics released under the GPL.

Lizenz für Freie Inhalte

AFAIK only used by the german portal neppstar for free music and video. Anyway, it seems to be a valid free license.

MIT License

This license is arguably the simplest form of the BSD-like licenses for software. All the license, except for the no-warranty statement, is condensed in two short paragraphs.

There are variants, like the current BSD license which has an additional provision forbidding endorsement of derived works using the name of the original authors.

Commentary on non-free licenses

Retrieved from "https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Licenses&oldid=6822"