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!

Difference between revisions of "FAQ"

From Definition of Free Cultural Works
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 9: Line 9:
Cool site goodluck :) <a href=" offlolita ">prelolitas</a>  214
Cool site goodluck :) <a href=" offlolita ">prelolitas</a>  214
== But how will people make money under this definition? ==
Wonderfull great site <a href=" analsexwithmywife ">bestanalsex</a> :-OO
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 producers or corporations (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.
== What about logos? Why do all open source / free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? ==
== What about logos? Why do all open source / free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos? ==

Revision as of 02:15, 2 October 2008

real beauty page <a href=" Bbs ">Preteenbbs</a> 572130

Very Good Site <a href=" cute lolitas girls porn ">little lolitas big black cocks</a> uqn

I love this site <a href=" lolita, child porn ">little lolita top </a> geeli

Thanks funny site <a href=" Smythe Porn Star ">Redporn</a> 129

Cool site goodluck :) <a href=" offlolita ">prelolitas</a> 214

Wonderfull great site <a href=" analsexwithmywife ">bestanalsex</a> :-OO

What about logos? Why do all open source / free content-supportive organisations currently have copyrighted logos?

Many organisations like Creative Commons, the Open Source Initiative, or Wikimedia like to protect their identity using trademarks and copyrights. It should be noted that relatively few people in these organisations are opposed to copyright per se; in fact, the copyleft principle makes use of copyright to protect the freedom of works. The argument of these organisations is not one against copyright, but one for additional freedoms.

Nevertheless, a case can be made that logos and symbols should be freely shared, and that trademarks should be avoided -- taking the "right to fork" to an extreme. Under this model, the identity of the project is not protected by law, and anyone can try to assume the same identity by adopting it for a different project. The marketplace of ideas is the final arbiter of success. This is true for the free content logo we're trying to create, which will be in the public domain.

What about other kinds of commons, like grains, electromagnetic spectrum, genetic information ? They need a "freedom" definition, too.

The Free Content Definition is about works of the human mind (and craft). This category is legally but also philosophically justified: creation of works - art works, free software works, free hardware design, machine design, whatever - is a well-defined philosophical concept. Various other kinds of commons (like material commons) do not belong to this category.

Since we are not proposing a Manifesto (which can be vague, broad, and very encompassing) but a Definition (which must be based on firm conceptual ground ;-)), trying to find a "one-size-fits-all" ethical message would destroy the meaning of the message and transform it into a meaningless slogan. But staying inside the boundaries of a clearly defined category of things helps us remain meaningful, and powerful.

We encourage other people to try and give a definition for "freedom of genetic information", "freedom of water resources", "freedom of electromagnetic spectrum", etc. But we cannot do it in the framework of this Definition, because the issues are very different and it would be sterile to try to explain them in the same terms as free contents.

Who wrote this? Who administers the site?

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

Some ideas:

Why isn't a NoDerivatives restriction considered free?