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:Logos and buttons"

From Definition of Free Cultural Works
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
: I strongly disagree. There is no higher degree of freedom than the absence of copyright. To argue that the works of Shakespeare are not ''libre'' because they are not under a copyleft license is bizarre to me. This is also in line with the [[definition]], which permits copyleft, but does not require it.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 15:45, 5 March 2007 (CET)
 
: I strongly disagree. There is no higher degree of freedom than the absence of copyright. To argue that the works of Shakespeare are not ''libre'' because they are not under a copyleft license is bizarre to me. This is also in line with the [[definition]], which permits copyleft, but does not require it.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 15:45, 5 March 2007 (CET)
 +
 +
Thanks Erik.
 +
Are there differences between free software, free culture and free knowledge?
 +
The [http://creativecommons.org Creative Commons] (free culture) offers a range of licenses whose degrees of freedom vary (e.g [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ Attribution-ShareAlike] is more free than [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]).
 +
 +
Regarding free software we find [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware non-copylefted free software].
 +
[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware Public domain software] is [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware non-copylefted free software].

Revision as of 05:35, 12 March 2007

Hi. Just an idea about the buttons: Please make it more international, by using symbols instead of text (like Attribution, Share-Alike). Regards--77.234.80.162 23:18, 16 February 2007 (CET)

Should we avoid duplicating Creative Commons work? - and focus on icons for free/libre content? - e.g. CC-By and Public Domain are arguably non-free/libre - as both allow derived works (such as translations and localisations) to be released under more restrictive licenses. Kim 13:48, 5 March 2007 (CET)

I strongly disagree. There is no higher degree of freedom than the absence of copyright. To argue that the works of Shakespeare are not libre because they are not under a copyleft license is bizarre to me. This is also in line with the definition, which permits copyleft, but does not require it.--Erik Möller 15:45, 5 March 2007 (CET)

Thanks Erik. Are there differences between free software, free culture and free knowledge? The Creative Commons (free culture) offers a range of licenses whose degrees of freedom vary (e.g Attribution-ShareAlike is more free than Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs).

Regarding free software we find non-copylefted free software. Public domain software is non-copylefted free software.