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 "Talk:Definition/Unstable"

From Definition of Free Cultural Works
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by 2806:10A6:1A:6A22:E911:18:657C:D4C5 (talk) to last revision by Mormegil)
Tag: Rollback
 
(374 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
* '''[http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=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]'''
  
* [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Talk:Definition/Unstable&oldid=2129 Archived comments until June 20, 2006]
+
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments until June 20, 2006]
 +
* [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments until January 3, 2010]
  
== Pushing to 1.0 ==
+
----
 +
__TOC__
  
I've made some significant [http://freecontentdefinition.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstable&diff=2175&oldid=2108 changes] to move us closer to 1.0, and I think that these are in line with the previous discussions as well as some comments from RMS:
+
== [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits ==
  
* I've tried to change the language so it can apply to physical works like sculptures. For instance, the definition now refers to ''derivative works'' instead of ''modified versions''.
+
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)
* I've sectioned the page clearly into defining separately what a ''free license'' is and what a ''free work'' is. New conditions are now listed to define free works. For instance, a computer program that is only available in binary form under CC-BY would not be considered a free work now.
 
* I've removed the term "Free Expression" -- it was largely negatively received in our naming discussion -- and now refer to the definition only as the Free Content Definition. To compensate, I've listed several specific terms and specific definitions that can be used in fields like knowledge, art and software.
 
* I've made a reference to DRM, and changed a few bits in the preamble.
 
  
Please help in checking and improving these changes -- remember this is the unstable version, so anyone is free to edit. I'd like to reach 1.0 in August. By then I would also like to change the logo in the top left corner. My current favorite is [[:Image:Mfalzon-freecontent logo01--normal.png|Marc Falzon's design]], so please comment on that on the [[logo contest]] page.
+
== Suppressing copyleft ==
  
Thanks,--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
+
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.
  
== Making it shorter ==
+
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.
  
Great work, Erik!
+
--[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
I think we have a problem: the text is very long. I would advocate finding ways to make it shorter, including putting some not-so-fundamental topics on their own pages, or in footnotes.
 
  
In particular, the preamble repeats lots of things that are said elsewhere. It has its own version of the bill of rights, which can only bring confusion. I suggest we strip it from the preamble. I also suggest we remove most of the second part of the preamble, starting from "Not all licenses grant the freedoms enumerated above", because it is really another slightly different way of saying what is said in clearer terms in the definition body.
+
I'd think that CC-BY-SA and LGPL may be free, but GFDL and GPL are '''obviously''' non-free. Because you can include CC-BY-SA or LGPL works as part of works distributed under other licenses, but you cannot do the same thing with GPL and GFDL works. This is also why Wikipedia has moved from GFDL to GFDL + CC-BY-SA.
 +
Section 5 "Combining Documents" of the GFDL:
 +
:You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.
 +
 +
:The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.
 +
 +
:In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements".
  
Regards
+
[[Special:Contributions/171.226.97.137|171.226.97.137]] 07:56, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 09:54, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
 
  
: Yes, I think we can probably do some culling in the preamble. I'm not sure whether the short summary of the key freedoms really is redundant, though, especially now that we distinguish between licenses and works. The summary of the freedoms seems to provide an additional ethical context.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)
+
: Maybe I don’t understand your specific point, but AFAICT you ''cannot'' generally combine a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA] work with a work under an other license, or, more specifically, when you combine a CC-BY-SA work with another work, the result must be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well. That is the same copyleft as in GFDL/GPL. On the other hand, LGPL allows you to combine an LGPL work (usually, a library) with another work (usually, an application), and distribute the result under any license. You cannot do that with CC-BY-SA, that is what the “share-alike” (-SA) tag is all about. On the other hand, [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC-BY] is a non-copyleft license which would allow that (but it is not the license Wikipedia uses). --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 11:52, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
  
: Agreed. This is definitely too long. Why don't we remove the recommendations. They seem written with the GFDL in mind and with the goal of putting pressure on Richard Stallman. Richard has said that having them in this document serves no purposes -- especially since the GFDL is free under this license. I think we can loose it. --[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|Benjamin Mako Hill]] 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)
+
: True, GPL might allow less freedoms than for instance the MIT license. However that does not necesserily make GPL a non-free license. If you define a ''free license'' as the license with the most freedoms, then even the MIT/BSD/... licenses would have to be considered non-free, then only public domain could be considered truly free. However as there already is a definition for the public domain, the whole project of "Definition of Free Cultural Works" would not make sense then. Of course, the problem remains as of how broad you would want the Definition of Free Cultural Works to be. But from looking at the previous versions, the idea and intention of Definition of Free Cultural Works seems to have been to cover copyleft licenses as well, as they do not harm the main idea and purpose of Free Content. As [[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] said before, excluding copyleft licenses is a completely different definition. Maybe you are more looking for http://copyfree.org/standard/ instead? --[[User:T X|T X]] 14:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
  
== Use of the term "Free" ==
+
== Definition of "Can" missing ==
  
If an object or item has any restrictions upon it, such as a copyright license of any form, it is by definition not free. This so-called definition is merely deciding how much restriction is still "free enough". This will be be subjective, and supporting a single point of view. I could never support such a definition, personally, because I make an effort to avoid hypocrisy. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
+
"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)
  
:I'm afraid there's not much to argue here. You are objecting to a "subjective" definition of freedom, as though there was such a thing as an "objective" definition of freedom recognized by everyone. The Free Content Definition must be read in the context of works of authorship. In this context it has the potential to become a very useful ethical and political reference point. Trying to make it coincide with everyone's own personal view of "theoretical freedom" is a battle which can only be lost and thus does not deserve to be fought.
+
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 short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 21:05, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
 
  
: The only allowable conditions as per the FCD are either those that protect freedom, or those that we consider morally acceptable (e.g. attribution, which cannot even be given up in many countries). I fail to see how an ethical interpretation of freedom is hypocritical.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)
+
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)
  
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-):
+
== Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' ==
  
* Maybe the term "Libre" would be better?
+
Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can
 +
* Use
 +
* Study
 +
* Copy
 +
* Change and Improve
  
* Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).
+
I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four freedoms:
  
== Altruism or not ==
+
* '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.
  
Hi,
 
  
the following excerpt of the preamble looks like it could lead to misunderstandings : ''Works built by communities collaborating as volunteers, art created for the purpose of shared enjoyment, essential learning materials, scientific research funded through taxpayer money, and many other creative expressions are harmed by artificial scarcity. They benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that these works should be free (...)''.
+
Therefore my suggestion, making more a whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality:
  
It seems to imply that works built by paid people, art created for other purposes than pure shared enjoyment, non-essential learning materials, etc., should not really be free, or that we don't care. It also contradicts the experience of Free Software where it is clear that cooperation between all kinds of actors (including those with egoistic purposes) is key to the vitality of the ecosystem. We should therefore think about another phrasing -- stressing the diversity of fields (software, art, etc.) and actors rather than making it look like a praise for altruism.
+
* Use and Study
 +
* Copy and Distribute
 +
* Change and Improve
  
--[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)
+
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 the more neutral, more generic action defined in the first verb of a freedom, and to place some emphasize on this good intent, the idea behind it.
  
== More changes ==
+
(I'm not quite sure whether I'd prefer the word 'distribute' or 'share'. Maybe a native English speaker could give some insight on what (s)he thinks the differing connotations might be.) --[[User:T X|T X]] 04:25, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
  
Hi,
+
:: The libre knowledge definition puts it this way:
 +
<center>
 +
{| class="wikitable" width="50%"
 +
|
 +
Users of libre knowledge are free to
  
I've tried to further streamline the definition. I think it's important that each part of the definition has a precise purpose. For example, the preamble must mainly explain the political/ethical/moral purposes of this definition.
+
:(0) use the work for any purpose
 +
:(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs
 +
:(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part
 +
:(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result.
 +
|}
 +
</center>
 +
::i.e. "study" is about being able to adapt/modify - use (0) and adapt (1) to ''help yourself'', "copy" (2) is about sharing to ''help your neighbour'', and the last freedom (3) is to clarify that you can also share your modified versions (to ''help the community'').
  
Even now, I have the feeling the definition is still long and a bit bureaucratically worded. I think for example that the discussion of why Free Culture et al. are too ambiguous should move to a separate page (which could also discuss why non-commercial and other restrictions are harmful).
+
::Personally, I prefer to retain the link with the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] as does the [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge libre knowledge definition]. Knowledge and cultural resources cannot be regarded as free if they cannot be accessed and modified with libre software. Consistency is important. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:12, 12 December 2011 (EST)
  
Regards. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)
+
==Libre==
  
== Alternate preamble ==
+
Please make it clear that this would also be the "[[Libre|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. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:37, 3 March 2012 (EST)
 +
:: I have created a parallel "libre" version - [[Libre|Libre Cultural Works Definition]] - but would prefer this not to be necessary. Discuss this issue right here or on the libre version's [[Talk:Libre|discussion page]] - Thanks - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)
 +
::I find the gratis meaning of "free" to be very confusing to newcomers and am in favor of reworking the text to use "libre" or another unambigious adjective. [[User:Cov|Cov]] 19:18, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
  
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)
+
== Free-Libre-Open Hardware Definition ==
  
Social and technological advances make it possible for a growing part of mankind to access, create, modify, publish and distribute various kinds of works -- art works, scientific and educational materials, software, articles -- in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.
+
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.  
Many communities, built upon mutually accepted ethical values, have arisen to give strength and structure to these instinctive practices; some of them in turn take part in broader social movements such as Free Software.
 
  
In most countries however, any original work of authorship is automatically covered by either copyright law or similar legal regimes<sup>[[#Notes|3]]</sup>, which consider authors as god-like "creators" and give them exclusive powers they can use against people who try to re-use "their" content. These laws, whose economic justifications have their roots in Middle Age Europe, not only are not amended to acknowledge the growing importance of the practices outlined above, but are being made increasingly severe and far-reaching in the ways they restrict our freedoms. New tools such as DRM (or Digital Restrictions Management) are part of this desperate plan to limit the free spread and sharing of works by artifically enforcing scarcity.
+
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.  
  
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their professionnal status, have a genuine interest in favoring a graceful ecosystem where works can be freely spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. In this ecosystem which is often called "culture", existing and future works benefit from being used freely. We therefore believe that works of authorship should be ''free'', and by '''freedom''' we mean:
+
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.
* the '''freedom to study''' the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
 
* the '''freedom to make and redistribute copies''', in whole or in part, of the information or expression
 
* the '''freedom to make changes and improvements''', and to distribute derivative works
 
  
For a work to be ''free'', these freedoms should be available to absolutely anyone, anywhere. They should not be restricted by the context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.
+
''DRAFT: '' http://freedomdefined.org/User:Jpotvin/Free-Libre-Open_Hardware_Definition
  
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as [[w:license|licenses]]; licenses make it very easy for authors to give and take their part in the vast ecosystem of authorship. Putting a work under a ''free license'' does not mean the author loses all his rights, but it gives to anyone the freedoms listed above. It is also possible in some countries to explicitly release a work into the public domain, which waives all rights the author has on the work<sup>[[#Notes|1]]</sup>.
+
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.
  
The rest of this document precisely defines the ''essential freedoms'' and provides guidelines by which ''licenses'' and ''works'' can be certified as meeting this definition, and therefore called "free".
+
Regards,
  
:Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. [[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)
+
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. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 05:18, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Permalink ==
 +
 
 +
[[Definition]] should contain a link to [[Definition/1.1]] to make it easier for people to refer to that version specifically.  (People who write books, for example, might not intend to link to [[Definition]] which is a moving target, but to [[Definition/1.1]] which their book refers to.)
 +
 
 +
: I added the link into the grey introduction box. Do you think it is OK? --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 11:58, 17 February 2015 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Expire of licenses if break ==
 +
 
 +
Some licenses, that are declared as free, expire, if you break them. I can't see that this restriction is allowed. -- [[User:David23x|David23x]] ([[User talk:David23x|talk]]) 10:55, 1 October 2015 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Source requirement on stable vs. optional source offer on unstable ==
 +
 
 +
I have noticed, thanks to '''some''' people on a IRC channel on chat.freenode.net, that the stable version requires source files to be redistributed and be on a format/standard/codec that is friendly to free/libre software, while the unstable version puts redistribution of source files as an option.
 +
 
 +
I, personally, see that, under the stable definition, almost no work would qualify as free/libre cultural work, not even those under free/libre licenses.
 +
 
 +
I'm not a free/libre culture activist (I'm only a free/libre software activist that thinks that non-functional data (like images, sound, and such) should be at least shareable), but I just want to know why the changes related to this difference weren't made to the stable version? What's the reasoning for holding it? I know there's no consensus, but can you describe the points where the opinions

Latest revision as of 00:42, 10 August 2020


User:TruthWorldOrder Edits[edit]

For what it's worth, I agree with User:Mormegil and his recent revert. I don't understand what problem the edits in question are trying to solve. Perhaps if they are explained them here, we can talk about it. —mako 19:41, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Suppressing copyleft[edit]

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 October 2011 (EDT)

I'd think that CC-BY-SA and LGPL may be free, but GFDL and GPL are obviously non-free. Because you can include CC-BY-SA or LGPL works as part of works distributed under other licenses, but you cannot do the same thing with GPL and GFDL works. This is also why Wikipedia has moved from GFDL to GFDL + CC-BY-SA. Section 5 "Combining Documents" of the GFDL:

You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.
The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.
In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements".

171.226.97.137 07:56, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Maybe I don’t understand your specific point, but AFAICT you cannot generally combine a CC-BY-SA work with a work under an other license, or, more specifically, when you combine a CC-BY-SA work with another work, the result must be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well. That is the same copyleft as in GFDL/GPL. On the other hand, LGPL allows you to combine an LGPL work (usually, a library) with another work (usually, an application), and distribute the result under any license. You cannot do that with CC-BY-SA, that is what the “share-alike” (-SA) tag is all about. On the other hand, CC-BY is a non-copyleft license which would allow that (but it is not the license Wikipedia uses). --Mormegil 11:52, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
True, GPL might allow less freedoms than for instance the MIT license. However that does not necesserily make GPL a non-free license. If you define a free license as the license with the most freedoms, then even the MIT/BSD/... licenses would have to be considered non-free, then only public domain could be considered truly free. However as there already is a definition for the public domain, the whole project of "Definition of Free Cultural Works" would not make sense then. Of course, the problem remains as of how broad you would want the Definition of Free Cultural Works to be. But from looking at the previous versions, the idea and intention of Definition of Free Cultural Works seems to have been to cover copyleft licenses as well, as they do not harm the main idea and purpose of Free Content. As Mormegil said before, excluding copyleft licenses is a completely different definition. Maybe you are more looking for http://copyfree.org/standard/ instead? --T X 14:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

Definition of "Can" missing[edit]

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

Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution'[edit]

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 the more neutral, more generic action defined in the first verb of a freedom, and to place some emphasize on this good intent, the idea behind it.

(I'm not quite sure whether I'd prefer the word 'distribute' or 'share'. Maybe a native English speaker could give some insight on what (s)he thinks the differing connotations might be.) --T X 04:25, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

The libre knowledge definition puts it this way:

Users of libre knowledge are free to

(0) use the work for any purpose
(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs
(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part
(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result.
i.e. "study" is about being able to adapt/modify - use (0) and adapt (1) to help yourself, "copy" (2) is about sharing to help your neighbour, and the last freedom (3) is to clarify that you can also share your modified versions (to help the community).
Personally, I prefer to retain the link with the free software definition as does the libre knowledge definition. Knowledge and cultural resources cannot be regarded as free if they cannot be accessed and modified with libre software. Consistency is important. - K 18:12, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Libre[edit]

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: Declaration on libre knowledge, Libre knowledge on Wikipedia and 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)
I find the gratis meaning of "free" to be very confusing to newcomers and am in favor of reworking the text to use "libre" or another unambigious adjective. Cov 19:18, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Free-Libre-Open Hardware Definition[edit]

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.[edit]

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 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Permalink[edit]

Definition should contain a link to Definition/1.1 to make it easier for people to refer to that version specifically. (People who write books, for example, might not intend to link to Definition which is a moving target, but to Definition/1.1 which their book refers to.)

I added the link into the grey introduction box. Do you think it is OK? --Mormegil (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2015 (EST)

Expire of licenses if break[edit]

Some licenses, that are declared as free, expire, if you break them. I can't see that this restriction is allowed. -- David23x (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2015 (EDT)

Source requirement on stable vs. optional source offer on unstable[edit]

I have noticed, thanks to some people on a IRC channel on chat.freenode.net, that the stable version requires source files to be redistributed and be on a format/standard/codec that is friendly to free/libre software, while the unstable version puts redistribution of source files as an option.

I, personally, see that, under the stable definition, almost no work would qualify as free/libre cultural work, not even those under free/libre licenses.

I'm not a free/libre culture activist (I'm only a free/libre software activist that thinks that non-functional data (like images, sound, and such) should be at least shareable), but I just want to know why the changes related to this difference weren't made to the stable version? What's the reasoning for holding it? I know there's no consensus, but can you describe the points where the opinions