Difference between revisions of "Talk:Definition/Unstable"
(→Public domain is not Free: yes it is free but it is not copyleft)
(→We need a proper one paragraph summary: new section)
|Line 321:||Line 321:|
:Public Domain is '''free''' but it is not '''copyleft''' because you can make unfree derivatives of public domain works. The same applies to [[CC-BY]].
:Public Domain is '''free''' but it is not '''copyleft''' because you can make unfree derivatives of public domain works. The same applies to [[CC-BY]].
Revision as of 14:30, 3 January 2010
Pushing to 1.0
I've made some significant 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:
- 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.
- 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 Marc Falzon's design, so please comment on that on the logo contest page.
Thanks,--Erik Möller 04:11, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
Hi Erik, I still think we should go for numbered freedoms as in the free software definition. Maybe I am missing something (coming in a bit late), but freedom 0 (of FS def) does not have an analog: i.e. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)" FSF]. Also, copyleft, a pre-requsite for freedom does not seem to be inherent in the definition yet. So, how about: Users 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 similarly. Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the Free Software Foundation (Kim)
It might be worth considering the generalisations implicit in the Libre Resources definition: Libre Resources: Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share enhancements or derived works.
Making it shorter
Great work, Erik! 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.
Regards --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.--Erik Möller 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)
- 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. --Benjamin Mako Hill 01:25, 8 August 2006 (CEST)
Agreed - too long. In the early stages of Libre Communities, we started off with a direct derivation of the free software definition:
Libre Resources are digital artefacts (e.g. text, images, video, software, etc.) which may be used freely.
Users 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 similarly.
Freedoms 1 and 3 require free formats and free software as defined by the Free Software Foundation (Kim)
Use of the term "Free"
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. - Amgine 18:58, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
- 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.
- In short, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. --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.--Erik Möller 19:37, 31 July 2006 (CEST)
- The free software definition refers to 4 core freedoms. An apparent "restriction", such as the requirement to release derived works under the same license, or an equivalent free license (copyleft), actually protects the core freedoms. Kim
A few thoughts to inspire more discussion :-): [Kim]
- Maybe the term "Libre" would be better? (e.g. Libre Resources Definition). The discussion here is all good and equally applicable to this term.
- Emphasise the freedom of the *users* of libre resources (authors are free to decide whether they release their resources with a free/libre license).
Another alternative: "Free/Libre Defined"
Altruism or not
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 (...).
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.
--Antoine 14:31, 22 August 2006 (CEST)
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.
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).
Regards. --Antoine 15:49, 22 August 2006 (CEST)
I would like to propose the following draft for a slight rephrasing of the preamble: --Antoine 15:10, 23 August 2006 (CEST)
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. 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 regimes3, 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.
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:
- 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.
To do give these freedoms, authors can choose among a vast array of legal documents known as 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 work1.
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".
- Since there has been no comment or answer for 3 weeks, I've committed a modified version of this proposal. Antoine 16:56, 17 September 2006 (CEST)
We've finally settled on a final name: Definition of Free Cultural Works. I will work on a rewrite towards a final draft for discussion very soon now.--Erik Möller 10:21, 18 October 2006 (CEST)
- First, welcome back...
- Then, it's shocking to learn that you've finally settled on a "final name". I don't really understand the process here: there was an online discussion (on this very wiki) about the name of the definition, a discussion which, as far as I remember, you had initiated. Why exactly did you finally decide to choose another name without any public proposal (a Google search at the moment writing reveals zero result for "Definition of Free Cultural Works", so I assume it was never discussed online) ?
- (it's not like this wiki was wasted by trolls and useless discussions by the way, so the efficiency argument would be misplaced)
- You say you want to go towards a final draft, which is fine. At the same time, you showed absolutely no concern for the few people who continued contributing on this wiki, despite the moderators being absent during a long time for no stated reason (actually two of the four moderators almost never contributed anything significant on this wiki). How does that fit with the stated goal of rallying a community around the words and ideas in the definition?
- Speaking about this new name, I don't think it is very good. "Works" already implies a creation of the mind, so adding "Cultural" in front seems it targets more specific kinds of creations of the mind (it does not look like it includes software, or scientific articles, for example). Not to mention that "Free Cultural Works" is longer and less catchy then say, "Free Content" or "Free Culture".
- All in all I'm quite disappointed. The free content (free culture, whatever) world needs something else than Yet Another Definition written in private by a group of good-willed people. This project was - at its beginning - promising to be open, community-driven. Now it seems you don't really want that after all. I hope to be proven wrong.
- Bye, Antoine 18:31, 21 October 2006 (CEST)
- It was important to us (Mako and myself, the co-initiators of the definition) to label the definition in a way which is agreeable to the important institutions of the Free Culture movement -- FSF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and so on. The discussion on the wiki was absolutely crucial to the entire process. All the names that have been listed here have been mentioned and repeatedly considered. Mako and I have spoken personally to Lessig, RMS, Moglen, and others about this. Now that, after many hours of talking, we have finally found something everyone seems to be able to agree to (more or less enthusiastically), you will have to understand that I am reluctant to second-guess the decision. Certainly, it is always nicer to have a larger scale community process to give a decision legitimacy, but I also believe that process is not an end in itself, and hope we can move foward together. I certainly appreciate (and am well aware of) all the work you have done on this wiki.
- Regarding your specific critique: the strength of "Free Cultural Works", in my opinion, is that it references the notion of "Free Culture" without explicitly being called a "Free Culture Definition". It also reduces the "work (labor)" vs. "work (intellectual)" ambiguity in the singular. For example, if I refer to a CD as a "Free Work", the response "So you've worked for free?" is almost inevitable. I do not agree that "Free Cultural" excludes software or scientific articles; in my opinion, both are very much and very clearly cultural works, and should be explicitly referenced.
- That the title of the definition itself is not quite catchy may not be such a bad thing -- we will not attempt to prescribe that you have to call free cultural works by that exact phrase. Instead, what I would like to do is to explicitly reference other phrases which have similar meanings, such as "free content" and "open knowledge".--Erik Möller 17:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)
- I understand you want to put Lessig, RMS and others on our side, but I think we shouldn't care. We have to do this work because FSF and CC refused to take position in the first place, so we are the ones setting a standard.
- Anyway, I'm ready to further contribute. But, sincerely, it will be difficult unless things stop being done in private. Regards, Antoine 21:06, 25 October 2006 (CEST)
- It would be fine if there had been offline discussion, provided that details were posted to the wiki here so that we could also see it, at the time or after the fact. Indeed, you have a wiki, so one might ask why the discussion was not carried out through the wiki, which would seem designed for the task?
- Also, like Antoine, I have a great deal of respect for Richard Stallman and for Lawrence Lessig, who through their writings have between them opened my eyes to freedom. Nevertheless, we should not fear to build on that, and hope to equal or exceed what has passed before.
- --Mercury Merlin 22:48, 25 October 2006 (CEST)
"Definition of Free Cultural Works" suggests "Creative Commons" and the associated "Free Culture" book. While these are both brilliant, they suggest a range of licenses most of which are non-free. We need to focus on the free/libre licenses which conform to the definition we are developing.Prefer something like "Definition of Libre Works" or "Definition of Free/Libre Resources", etc. - or simply "Libre Definition" - Kim Tucker 30 October 2006.
- I concur with your comments, and I'm not terribly happy either with the term "Cultural" nor with the term "Works", for various reasons. Libre Definition or Libre Content Definition would be much more acceptable, and I often use the term "Software libre" in preference to "Free software" for similar reasons. So far Libre is not really an English word in itself, but perhaps we should adopt it and make it so anyway, since "Free" in current English has too many connotations of both "Libre" and "Gratis" which are avoided by use of a more precise term.
- --Mercury Merlin 00:55, 31 October 2006 (CET)
- Libre doesn't work for me -- too strange and foreign, too easily to confuse with "Libri" (books). IMHO focusing the "Free Culture" movement on a clearer notion of freedom is a worthy goal in its own right.--Erik Möller 02:32, 2 November 2006 (CET)
- That's a reasonable point, and is the same reason that "Free software" is the normal expression in English, rather than "Software libre" although that can of course be used as well - and much of our language derives from expressions which were originally "strange and foreign" but became familiar and commonplace because people started using them anyway.
- For our purposes it's unfortunate, due to the confusion in English between "libre" and "gratis" according to context, where "libre" captures our intended meaning. So far the best expression I've seen is "Free Content Definition" as in the present unstable definition, as dropping the "and Expression" was a distinct improvement, and we can explain that we mean Free content in the sense of liberty not price. --Mercury Merlin 20:09, 5 November 2006 (CET)
- Libre disambiguates, while "free" is foreign and confusing to most people on the planet. Wikipedia on Libre indicates that the word "Libre" is used in various Romance languages while "gratis is common in Germanic and Romance languages. So, at least speakers of those languages would identify with these terms, and no-one would be confused about what is meant.
In various circles, the term FLOSS is being used more and more - probably encouraged by high profile research projects such as FLOSSWorld and FLOSSPols among others and in articles in First Monday where the acronym FLOSS is used more than FOSS (the L is significant). I think it is time (and would be useful) to make "libre" an accepted English word - like so many others from the Romance languages :-). Kim 20070118
look forward to seeing updates, anyway
The definition so far in unstable is a distinct improvement from version 0.66, for a wiki like this to start working effectively we need to be seeing more updates to it by more contributors, and that would also be in line with the philosophy being developed here.
Eric's "finally settled" seems ... an unfortunate turn of phrase to be using, and certainly "Cultural Works" strikes me as having connotation, baggage and implied scope that would be not be as good as what is in the current document. By contrast, "Free content" is short, neutral, clear, and above all else generalised, applying to anything that can be expressed as a bitstream, whether or not it's Cultural, and whether or not it's a Work however that is defined.
I only discovered this wiki relatively recently, and certainly hope to be contributing to it in future, as I feel it's fulfilling a gap that's not satisfied anywhere else for the general case of Free content and Free media. There are still a few things I'd comment on in the current definition, for example:
==> I'm still not very keen on the "god-like" creators bit, despite no longer being capitalised, it still seems a bit too emotional, and contentious in my opinion. I'd like to see that replaced, perhaps by something expressing the way that exclusive monopoly separates creators and consumers, where recipients of content are relegated to being only passive consumers, not expected nor permitted to contribute or create anything to a finished "work" (oops, there's that term again!) - whereas consumers themselves may well be potential creators and contributors, just as happens on a wiki, and indeed the normal route to becoming a creator yourself is through learning, practise, and copying from those who have gone before.
In the meantime I am/have been working on one or two related essays, looking at what free content is or could be, whether under laws as they exist presently, or under a different regimen. Some of that can be found on my user talk page for now, depending where that goes I might move it elsewhere or if it would prove useful to the freedomdefined.org wiki perhaps to think about creating something like the Gnu.org philosophy page which lists and links to a variety of essays, articles, and other material underpinning the concepts behind Free software.
--Mercury Merlin 20:22, 21 October 2006 (CEST)
- I feel the same about "god-like" being a bit emotional, but I also agree with the underlying idea: since the 19th century and the romantic movement, artists have been considered a special, almost separate kind of human beings. Today many people think it is a natural idea, while it is really very recent, and not a very justified one IMO.
- regards, Antoine 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CEST)
I also find the use of the term "god-like" unsavoury. This term might be offensive to parctitioners of certain faiths, particulary if or when the definition is translated to certain languages. I belive that such a definition would be most useful if it written in an as unequivocal a language as possible, while at the same time avoiding a legalistic style. Not that this is an easy task, but avoiding emotionally charged language would help.
btw, it is the laws, not the countries that create the situation, this is not clear in the current. "thier content" is metaphoric and emotional, and I'm not clear why its re-use, not plain use.
I would rewrite this sentence as follows: They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. to Such laws provide authors with extraordianry rights, effectivly granting them an exlusive monopoly as to how the content they create can be used. --Inkwina 20:33, 17 February 2007 (CET)
Added "freedom to use" to the preamble
As it was the preamble was not consistent with subsequent sections; please amend and re-edit as may be necessary.
--Mercury Merlin 22:42, 26 October 2006 (CEST)
(re)distribute v. communicate
When we talk about information distribution esseantially equals communication. After all, the network, and the community, consists of people, and the information that is shared by the community isn't "distributed" it is "communicated".
I thus argue that
- 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
should be changed to something along the lines of
- the freedom to communicate the information or expression to anyone, without restriction
- the freedom to communicate mutated versions of the information or expression
Definition and / or manifesto?
The current preamble asserts that (all) cultural works should be free. Is this really to be part of the definition? My guess is that many people are interested in a definition, without necessarily being in support of this claim. /Novidius 17:48, 28 February 2007 (CET)
- Saying that works of authorship should be free seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement to me. The definition does not advocate abolishing copyright law to achieve that goal, nor does it set any kind of timetable -- in fact, it doesn't even assert that this goal is achievable for all works of authorship. It merely expresses a clear moral preference of free over non-free works. This moral preference is, indeed, something which I think we should communicate, as the definition is not meant to be merely a sterile legal text, but part of a social movement which agrees with this very basic notion -- but may favor different methods to achieve it, or even disagree upon its ultimate feasibility.--Erik Möller 20:49, 28 February 2007 (CET)
- It is not my intention to question that the preference of free works should be stated on the site. Still, it is hardly part the definition of a free work. Therefore, I would suggest another page for the moral and philosophy, separated from the definition. /Novidius 15:29, 1 March 2007 (CET)
Digital vs. Analog (non-digital)
It seems to me that this definition refers, and implicitly applies exclusively to, Digital renditions. I do not know if this is intentional, but it is defiantly not a bad thing. I believe that for a work to be really free it needs to be replicatable (i.e. it should be possible to make a perfect copy, not that it is possible to come up with it again from scratch). This is only practically possible (easy) with text (hence the power of writing) and today with digital media. If there is agreement with this vein of thought I think that it should be made more explicit in the definition.
This would nicely lead to the statement that the freedoms required by the definition cannot be technically impaired or limited (e.g. through the use of propriety digital formats) e.g. an audio clip can be released under CC-BY-SA as an .ogg and as a .wma, but only the .ogg version should be considered free under this definition.
--Inkwina 12:35, 9 March 2007 (CET)
- Actually, the definition tries to take physical (non-digital) works into account. A license like the Free Art License was explicitly drafted with physical works in mind as well. --Antoine 18:38, 13 March 2007 (CET)
- ...make it possible for a growing part of humanity to access, create, modify, publish and distribute cultural works that can be represented in digital form ... This sentence gives the opposite impression. It's really a matter of clarity.
- Also can this definition apply to an original oil painting on canvas? how can "The freedom to redistribute copies" be reconciled with "No technical restrictions" when the only way to make a copy of an oil painting is to employ a copy artist with great technical skill to make a copy; what is somtimes called a "fake". -Inkwina 03:49, 21 March 2007 (CET)
- Ok, the quote above is part of the preamble, it explains the technical context that makes free content more and more relevant. But the definition itself is not specific to digital works.
- As for making copies of a painting, I don't see having skills as a "technical restriction". For making a copy of a digital image, you also need technical skills (copying a file on a computer is a skill, even if a basic one). In the spirit of this definition, a restriction is a burden that is deliberately added by the author/producer/distributor, not a requirement inherent to the kind of work. If I want to modify a piece of software and recompile it, I'd better know how to code: is it a "technical restriction" too?
- By the way, while you need some very good skills to make a near-perfect copy, you can also make a very approximate copy which would still qualify as a breach of "intellectual property" if the original painting was not under a free license.
- --Antoine 13:21, 21 March 2007 (CET)
- I think the definition can be reconciled by requiring any work which can be modified non-destructively to allow modification -- but any work which cannot be should have no restrictions on derivatives which do not destroy the original work. ("No technical restrictions" may even include not being displayed in a venue which does not allow photography -- which is a huge technical restriction right now on creating derivatives of works which should have fallen into the public domain.) Kat Walsh 18:13, 28 March 2007 (CEST)
- Good point Kat. But the real problem is not with deriviative works but with copies. It is the Freedom to redistribute copies that creates a problem. Contrast the digital domain, where a copy of a pice of code has the same value (not neccecarly monatary) as the original, with the art domain where a copy always has a different value (not nessecarly minor) by virtue of being a copy. Then again contrast that with music, where a score can be copied, but the music itself is only ever interpreted never copied, even if the same piece is performed twice in a row by the same person. Again the technical skill to copy/compile code can be easly acquired, and is widely available and distributied, espessially when compared to the ability to make 'indistinguishable' copies of artwork, which is a rare abilty at best, impossible at worst. A rough copy, might infringe copyright, but it is a deriviative work. I apologize for being the devil's advocate, but I belive that if this definition is to be used outside of the domain of digital works it need to be written in a way that makes sense to people who might have a very different idea of what "to copy a creative work" means, different from that of geeks and probabbly different from one another's. I, more or less, understand what is meant and the inherent limitations because I'm familiar with FLOSS and wikipedia, but if I were to read this text the the Music Professor who I occasionally have to help use the photocopier, 'cause he can't even set it to A3, his interpretaion will be that this was written by a bunch of rebles tring to lay their hands on his royalties :-) --Inkwina 20:18, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
The role of the source file requirement?
I agree that something like the source file requirement needs to be included. I think it aims at several related ideals:
- Providing a modifiable format (e.g. a text file rather than a PDF)
- Providing a format informative to humans (e.g. a musical score rather than an Ogg Vorbis recording)
- Providing necessary information that is only summarized or analyzed in the distributed work at all (e.g. providing the actual coded dataset for a paper reporting the results of a regression analysis)
I'm not sure that the "source file" concept quite addresses these issues. As applied to software, source code gets at (1) very well, (2) pretty well, and (3) doesn't usually arise. I wonder whether there is some more helpful term the definition could use, or perhaps whether the item itself should be split into more than one.
Why the sneering tone towards authorship? Free Content isn't about limiting author's rights, it's about convincing people that it's better for authors to share, not that they're misguided in wanting some control at all. It's really all about the author's control over the work, because without it an author couldn't say "you must follow the GPL" any more than he could say 'no copying.' 184.108.40.206 05:08, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
Speaking as a translator, I find the very first sentence ambiguous: "This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose."
Is "purpose" here purpose as in motivation; or purpose as in manner of using? "For fun" is a purpose, but so is "as a doorstop". Perhaps some grammatician can say that one of those is semantically not a valid understanding of "purpose" or that they are in a larger sense equivalent, but I am worried about the casual reader, and will note that some languages (definitely not Finnish) may not find a direct equivalent for such a flexible word. -- Cimon Avaro 15:55, 25 June 2007 (CEST)
- It's purpose as in reason (or "manner of using" as you said it). Angela Beesley 16:49, 25 June 2007 (CEST)
- I tend to disagree. My interpretation leaned towards intention rather then action but both aspects, should be covered. that is why the word purpose is useful, albeit a headache for translators, who have to see how to encapsulate both meanings. By negation, a book with a licence that forbids you from using a printed version of it a fodder for a fire cannot be said to be free. A book with a licence which disallows you from using it in an language class as an example of bad grammar is also not free. maybe: "...copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose." should become: "...copied and/or modified, by any person (both legal and natural), for any purpose, in manner and intention." but that sounds too legalistic, doesn't it?
--Inkwina 17:19, 26 June 2007 (CEST)
- Indeed. I went around the obstacle, and listed both meanings separately. I don't see why it wouldn't benefit the english version to be explicit about there being these two components to "purpose" either. -- Cimon Avaro 17:06, 27 June 2007 (CEST)
Another incredibly irritating phrase; "Essential Freedom". Puh-lease, say what you really mean. "Essential" as in it is essential that I find the lost pair to my sock? Essential in the sense of inalienable, never to be breached for what reason whatsoever. I am pretty sure neither is what is meant here. Is it intended to be deliberately ambiguous? Can't a more tightly construeable word be found? -- Cimon Avaro 16:25, 25 June 2007 (CEST)
- They are essential. Without them, the content can not be called free content, which means they're essential to this definition. Angela Beesley 16:49, 25 June 2007 (CEST)
- Hmmm... the words fundamental and necessary come to mind as better alternatives. Possibly there freedoms might be better called "Required Basic Freedoms for Works to Comply to the Definition".
--Inkwina 17:19, 26 June 2007 (CEST)
- Both "fundamental" and "necessary" sound better, but your last long form suggestion is the best of the lot for my money; even though some may think it is clunky because long, it is better to be clunky and clear than belles lettres and fuzzy on the interpretation. -- Cimon Avaro 17:11, 27 June 2007 (CEST)
Defining Free Cultural Works
I find that the statement: "In order to be considered free, a work must be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status must provide the same essential freedoms enumerated above." does not make it explicit enough that works in the public domain are also free by this definition as the emphasis it on the license. I think it might be reworded so: "For a cultural work to be free its legal status must provide the required freedoms enumerated above. Works in the Public Domain or those licensed under a recognized Free Culture License have these required freedoms. Works under other licenses which provide all the required freedoms are also Free Works." --Inkwina 04:10, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Some degree of misunderstanding of the legal situation in many countries
The following :
- "Works that either have no copyright (thus being in the public domain), or are licensed under a Free Culture License comply with these guidelines."
reflects some degree of misunderstanding of the legal situation in many countries, where works can be unprotected by copyright law (thus be "in the public domain"), and yet be unfree. See the discussions we are having presently on Wikimedia Commons about Italian museum artworks or Australian commonwealth reserves, where huge use restrictions exist, while the works are technically in the public domain, as far as copyright law is concerned. Copyright law is not the only law having consequences on the use of works. Teofilo 05:08, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Public domain is not Free
Regarding this change:
You can make a derivative of a public domain work that is encumbered, no?
The current rule for Wikipedia text is either free content, fair use content, or public domain content, but that doesn't mean that either fair use or public domain are Free. It just means they are compatible to be incorporated into Wikipedia. You can make a derivative of something public domain and release it under a Free license, but you could also release it under a restrictive one, so it does not have the share-alike property defined in the Preamble. So public domain does not belong in this document? Omegatron 14:36, 11 January 2009 (EST)
- Public Domain is free but it is not copyleft because you can make unfree derivatives of public domain works. The same applies to CC-BY.
We need a proper one paragraph summary
The Summary is not a summary. It is an introduction. It tells you what is coming below.
This page desperately needs a one paragraph summary that can be quoted wherever free works are found. As such a one paragraph summary will be widely quoted it is probably the most important paragraph in this wiki but I'm going to have a go anyway.Joe Raftery 12:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)