| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | There is a bug here. One of the sentences says ''"The license may include clauses that strive to further ensure that the work is a free work, notably by enforcing some of the conditions specified in the paragraphs below"'', but the meaning of "the paragraphs below" has been lost when this part of this definition was given its own page. | | There is a bug here. One of the sentences says ''"The license may include clauses that strive to further ensure that the work is a free work, notably by enforcing some of the conditions specified in the paragraphs below"'', but the meaning of "the paragraphs below" has been lost when this part of this definition was given its own page. |
| | --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:37, 18 February 2007 (CET) | | --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 15:37, 18 February 2007 (CET) |
| − |
| |
| − | == question ==
| |
| − | A question on "Permissible restrictions": if a photo would have a restriction that the ''location'' where it was taken has to be mentioned, would that constitute an unpermissible restriction? Example: "Mention ''Taken at London zoo'' on publication". [[User:TeunSpaans|TeunSpaans]] 15:34, 27 March 2007 (CEST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Our Definition? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Why are '''WE''' so possessive of this definition, if its supposed to be about freedom?
| |
| − | Its better to say '''this''' or '''the''' definintion.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Also, is this page part of the definition? It's odd that such a crucial part is on a separate page,
| |
| − | and the part on Versioning, which is not strictly speaking part of the definition, is on the definition's page!
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 13:18, 19 June 2007 (CEST)
| |
| − | :Where do you read this? [[User:TeunSpaans|TeunSpaans]] 07:04, 7 July 2007 (CEST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::First line ''There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that we do not feel impede the essential freedom in our definition.''
| |
| − | ::This would be better phrased as: ''There are certain requirements and restrictions on the use or interchange of works that do not impede the essential freedoms prescribed by this definition, and, hence, are compatible with it.''
| |
| − | --[[User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] 13:57, 9 July 2007 (CEST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Trademark ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Something else which is a reasonable restriction is that if the work is trademarked then anyone who modifies or redistributes it has to remove the trademarked stuff unless they have permission from your company. But trademark law is separate from copyright law, so I think it doesn't have to be part of the copyright license
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Inaccuracy of "restrictions" ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | All restrictions come from ©. Regarding NC and ND and such, we're talking about licenses that do not grant adequate permissions. Regarding SA/copyleft, we're saying that not granting permission to release under non-free terms is OK. None of these public license provisions are restrictions. I suggest patching the definition and this article for accuracy. I may attempt to do so in my userspace and will add a note here if I do. [[User:Mike Linksvayer|Mike Linksvayer]] ([[User talk:Mike Linksvayer|talk]]) 12:54, 30 August 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | : That is a good observation. I wouldn’t take it as a big problem, though: the Definition is constructed so that it first defines “Essential Freedoms”, and specifies that “a license must grant [them] ''without limitation''” (emphasis mine), after which it creates the exception to this rule with “Not all restrictions on the use or distribution of works impede essential freedoms.” Maybe just copying the relevant part of [[Definition]], or explaining a bit at the top of this page to make it more clear? --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 11:56, 31 August 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == artist harvest fans ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As a musician, I would be happy to permit free distribution provided I could demand to be given the email address of anybody who is being given a copy. Permissible or not? Furthermore, the concept would seem more feasible if I could limit distribution to person to person mail as opposed to providers like i.e. soundcloud - but that would be a separate discusion.
| |
| − | :'''Not enforceable''' I wouldn't consider this free but I also think it wouldn't be possible to enforce this anyway. [[User:Koavf|Koavf]] ([[User talk:Koavf|talk]]) 14:22, 13 January 2017 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Not enforceable? The license would simply state you get permission to use the work only if you send the author your e-mail address. Either the author has received your e-mail address, or you are violating copyright (even though “e-mail address” is far from being a unique/reliable identifier of a person). I’d say such restriction is not acceptable, because it does not fall into any of the categories. The same is true for the other condition (permission is granted only to end users, not intermediaries/cloud providers/…). IMHO, IANAL. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 07:28, 20 January 2017 (EST)
| |
| − | :::'''Enforceablity''' Not everyone has an email address and if I get a copy and then give you a copy, then am I supposed to get your email address and pass it along? What about peer-to-peer file-sharing? What about if I put it on a site and stream it? From a technological perspective, it's just impossible. [[User:Koavf|Koavf]] ([[User talk:Koavf|talk]]) 13:23, 20 January 2017 (EST)
| |
| − | ::::Errm… yes, you are supposed to do exactly that. If fulfilling the license conditions is impossible for some use cases, then such use cases are not allowed under such a license, simple as that. (Note that my formulation was simpler/more understandable/more practical in that regard: ''you'' are only allowed to use the work if ''you'' send ''your own'' e-mail to the author. The result is the same, but in this construction, even peer-to-peer file-sharing might be possible.) --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 16:17, 21 January 2017 (EST)
| |
| − | :::::'''First sale''' I imagine that in the United States, this would run afoul of the first sale doctrine (even if the "sale" is at no cost): once you have something, I can't tell you how to use it. I can make a license that says that you can only listen to my song while jumping on one foot but it wouldn't stand any legal scrutiny. In the case of CC-style licenses, they have a fairly strong legal backing but even they may not really be enforceable. [[User:Koavf|Koavf]] ([[User talk:Koavf|talk]]) 16:52, 21 January 2017 (EST)
| |
| − | ::::::You are mixing too many concepts there. There is nothing specific in this specific hypothetical license which would trigger first sale differently than any well-known license. First-sale doctrine applies to the physical item you buy. You are free to sell it, rent it, give it to someone, whatever. You are not free to make and distribute copies of it. Furthermore, first-sale doctrine does not apply to digital content: the copyright owner did not sell an item to you, he/she has provided you with a license to use it.
| |
| − | ::::::License requiring strange things to be able to properly ''use'' a work you acquired license for ''might'' have some trouble (even though I’d imagine in the United States, contract law is quite permissive). However, license which limits ''distribution'' of the licensed work even in a very complicated way? Not much.
| |
| − | ::::::--[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 17:25, 21 January 2017 (EST)
| |
