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
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
Very Good Site <a href=" Sex ">Watch Porn On Ipod Touch</a> pezu
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?
- Why the NC permission culture simply doesn't work
- Non-commercial ShareAlike is not copyleft
- Erik Möller, The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons NC License