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!

Talk:Definition/Unstable: Difference between revisions

From Definition of Free Cultural Works
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(file)
Line 1: Line 1:
* '''[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|action=edit&section=new}} Start a new discussion topic]'''
*  
'''[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|action=edit&section=new}}  
Start a new discussion topic]'''


* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments until June 20, 2006]
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments  
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments until January 3, 2010]
until June 20, 2006]
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments  
until January 3, 2010]


----
----
__TOC__
__TOC__


== Need definition for "Unstable" as you know or understand it == Thoughts, anyone? Anyone at all that isn't a machine?
== Need definition for "Unstable" as you know or understand it ==  
Thoughts, anyone? Anyone at all that isn't a machine?


== [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits == For what it's worth, I agree with [[User:Mormegil]] and his [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12071&oldid=12070 recent revert]. I don't understand what problem [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12044&oldid=12024 the edits in question] are trying to solve. Perhaps if they are explained them here, we can talk about it. —<b>[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#C40099">m</font><font color="#600099">a</font><font color="#2D0399">k</font><font color="#362365">o</font>]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#000000">๛</font>]]</b> 19:41, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
== [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits == For what it's worth, I agree with  
[[User:Mormegil]] and his  
[http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12071&oldid=12070
recent revert]. I don't understand what problem  
[http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12044&oldid=12024
the edits in question] are trying to solve. Perhaps if they are  
explained them here, we can talk about it. —<b>[[User:Benjamin  
Mako Hill|<font color="#C40099">m</font><font  
color="#600099">a</font><font  
color="#2D0399">k</font><font  
color="#362365">o</font>]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako  
Hill|<font color="#000000">๛</font>]]</b> 19:41, 26  
September 2011 (EDT)


== Suppressing copyleft == In re 171.226.171.169’s ''I am trying to delist GFDL, GPL, LGPL, CC-BY-SA and other copyleft licenses'': While I can understand (and, for a part, agree with) the opinion that copyleft licenses are not “free”, I have to point out that this would be an ''extreme'' change of the definition. Note that this definition originates at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation, which use copyleft licenses extensively (the whole body of Wikipedia text is licensed under CC-BY-SA, for start), and which use the Definition as the [[wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy|criterion of acceptability]]. Changing the Definition so as to exclude copyleft would mean the whole Wikipedia contents would be against its own rules. I just can’t imagine the definition could change so radically (without becoming a completely different definition). An alternate definition is possible, but would be exactly that – ''alternate'', not just a new version of this. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 Oc
== Suppressing copyleft == In re 171.226.171.169’s ''I am trying to  
delist GFDL, GPL, LGPL, CC-BY-SA and other copyleft licenses'': While I  
can understand (and, for a part, agree with) the opinion that copyleft  
licenses are not “free”, I have to point out that this would be an  
''extreme'' change of the definition. Note that this definition  
originates at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation, which use copyleft  
licenses extensively (the whole body of Wikipedia text is licensed under
CC-BY-SA, for start), and which use the Definition as the  
[[wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy|criterion of acceptability]].  
Changing the Definition so as to exclude copyleft would mean the whole  
Wikipedia contents would be against its own rules. I just can’t imagine  
the definition could change so radically (without becoming a completely  
different definition). An alternate definition is possible, but would be
exactly that – ''alternate'', not just a new version of this.  
--[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 Oc


== Definition of "Can" missing == "Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can use, study, copy, change and improve..." -> Tribes in a lot of countries don't have computers - and therefore ''can't'' use the MIT/GPL/... licensed software I wrote. So my work is not a Free Cultural Work? (I guess such a conclusion is not intended) Maybe a definition for certain words, like "can", "may", ... should be added. Similiarly as keywords were specified for IETF's Internet Standards / RFCs (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). --[[User:T X|T X]] 13:37, 1 November 2011 (EDT) In a similar vein, "should" is used a lot where some might argue for "must" (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt ) ([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006433.html idea from]). - [[User:KTucker|K]] 17:48, 12 December 2011 (EST)
== Definition of "Can" missing == "Free Cultural Works are works which  
anyone can use, study, copy, change and improve..." -> Tribes in a  
lot of countries don't have computers - and therefore ''can't'' use the  
MIT/GPL/... licensed software I wrote. So my work is not a Free Cultural
Work? (I guess such a conclusion is not intended) Maybe a definition  
for certain words, like "can", "may", ... should be added. Similiarly as
keywords were specified for IETF's Internet Standards / RFCs  
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). --[[User:T X|T X]] 13:37, 1  
November 2011 (EDT) In a similar vein, "should" is used a lot where some
might argue for "must" (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt )  
([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006433.html
idea from]). - [[User:KTucker|K]] 17:48, 12 December 2011 (EST)


== Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' == Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can * Use * Study * Copy * Change and Improve I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four freedoms: * 'Study' is a form of 'Use': It's just a more specific form of usage - which, agreed, a lot of EULAs and laws try to exclude. * 'Distribution' should be added: If you were only looking at these four freedoms, even some content which you get via an NDA might fit these points. You can use, study and even copy the work for your own needs, you may change and improve it - however you won't be allowed to share any of these things afterwards. Therefore my suggestion, making more a whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality: * Use and Study * Copy and Distribute * Change and Improve So that the second verb of each freedom is actually a more specific form of the first verb of each freedom. The purpose of the second verb is to better reflect the true, good intent of
== Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' == Free  
Cultural Works are works which anyone can * Use * Study * Copy * Change  
and Improve I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four  
freedoms: * 'Study' is a form of 'Use': It's just a more specific form  
of usage - which, agreed, a lot of EULAs and laws try to exclude. *  
'Distribution' should be added: If you were only looking at these four  
freedoms, even some content which you get via an NDA might fit these  
points. You can use, study and even copy the work for your own needs,  
you may change and improve it - however you won't be allowed to share  
any of these things afterwards. Therefore my suggestion, making more a  
whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality: * Use and  
Study * Copy and Distribute * Change and Improve So that the second verb
of each freedom is actually a more specific form of the first verb of  
each freedom. The purpose of the second verb is to better reflect the  
true, good intent of


==Libre==
==Libre==
Line 60: Line 116:


I
I
  hope nobody is offended by this thorough change. Putting it up as a  
  hope nobody is offended by this thorough change. Putting it up as a  
fork here just seemed to best way to discuss it without interfering with
fork here just seemed to best way to discuss it without interfering with

Revision as of 05:30, 31 March 2013

[https://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion topic]

until June 20, 2006]

until January 3, 2010]


Need definition for "Unstable" as you know or understand it

Thoughts, anyone? Anyone at all that isn't a machine?

== User:TruthWorldOrder Edits == For what it's worth, I agree with User:Mormegil and his [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12071&oldid=12070

recent revert]. I don't understand what problem 

[http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12044&oldid=12024

the edits in question] are trying to solve. Perhaps if they are 

explained them here, we can talk about it. —[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|mako]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|]] 19:41, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Suppressing copyleft == In re 171.226.171.169’s I am trying to delist GFDL, GPL, LGPL, CC-BY-SA and other copyleft licenses: While I can understand (and, for a part, agree with) the opinion that copyleft licenses are not “free”, I have to point out that this would be an extreme change of the definition. Note that this definition originates at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation, which use copyleft licenses extensively (the whole body of Wikipedia text is licensed under

CC-BY-SA, for start), and which use the Definition as the 

criterion of acceptability. Changing the Definition so as to exclude copyleft would mean the whole Wikipedia contents would be against its own rules. I just can’t imagine the definition could change so radically (without becoming a completely different definition). An alternate definition is possible, but would be

exactly that – alternate, not just a new version of this. 

--Mormegil 09:48, 17 Oc

== Definition of "Can" missing == "Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can use, study, copy, change and improve..." -> Tribes in a lot of countries don't have computers - and therefore can't use the MIT/GPL/... licensed software I wrote. So my work is not a Free Cultural

Work? (I guess such a conclusion is not intended) Maybe a definition 

for certain words, like "can", "may", ... should be added. Similiarly as

keywords were specified for IETF's Internet Standards / RFCs 

(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). --T X 13:37, 1 November 2011 (EDT) In a similar vein, "should" is used a lot where some

might argue for "must" (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt ) 

([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006433.html

idea from]). - K 17:48, 12 December 2011 (EST)

== Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' == Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can * Use * Study * Copy * Change and Improve I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four freedoms: * 'Study' is a form of 'Use': It's just a more specific form of usage - which, agreed, a lot of EULAs and laws try to exclude. * 'Distribution' should be added: If you were only looking at these four freedoms, even some content which you get via an NDA might fit these points. You can use, study and even copy the work for your own needs, you may change and improve it - however you won't be allowed to share any of these things afterwards. Therefore my suggestion, making more a whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality: * Use and Study * Copy and Distribute * Change and Improve So that the second verb

of each freedom is actually a more specific form of the first verb of 

each freedom. The purpose of the second verb is to better reflect the true, good intent of

Libre

Please make it clear that this would also be the "libre cultural works" definition.

The libre knowledge definition is completely compatible as far as I

can tell. It appears in some form on the following pages: [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_Knowledge Libre knowledge on Wikipedia] and [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say libre]. i.e. at some key point state that free means "libre"/"free as in

freedom" - perhaps as simply as writing free/libre at least once near 

the beginning. - K 18:37, 3 March 2012 (EST)

I have created a parallel "libre" version - Libre Cultural Works Definition - but would prefer this not to be necessary. Discuss

this issue right here or on the libre version's discussion page - Thanks - K 18:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Free-Libre-Open Hardware Definition

Hello, I'm starting a "friendly fork" of the OSHW Definition here because, currently engaged in writing a free/libre/open hardware project

proposal to a set of potential clients who are not at all familiar with
the whole genre of free/libre/open approaches, I feel the current OSHW 

Definition is not concise enough to just reproduce as an excerpt. I also

feel the current OSHW Definition risks the same division between "open 

source" methods and "free" ethics that has complicated relations for years within the free/libre/open source software community.

Back in 2004 while preparing a presentation deck for my Director General

in government, I needed to cram the OSI definition into a single 

screen: http://www.goslingcommunity.org/gtec2004.shtml In the end I felt

the short version I had adapted was more useful as a definition than 

the original, in the same sense that dictionaries also hold to very concise phrases. Over the years too, I came to see the importance of including both the methods and ethics elements into projects.

So what appears here as a "fork" to facilitate discussion is the current

draft text that appears in my own free/libre/open hardware document. 

DRAFT: http://freedomdefined.org/User:Jpotvin/Free-Libre-Open_Hardware_Definition

I

hope nobody is offended by this thorough change. Putting it up as a 

fork here just seemed to best way to discuss it without interfering with

your main definition text.

Regards,

Joseph Potvin

Updating and creating a stable version.

Hello, my name is Michelle Kosik, I'm new to this so please excuse my inexperience. I was hopping we can make the font bigger or bolder. How do I change the version to the stable vershion?

You don’t just change the stable version. See Authoring process

for more information. --Mormegil ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 05:18, 26 March 2013 (EDT)