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. --Antoine 15:37, 18 February 2007 (CET)
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". TeunSpaans 15:34, 27 March 2007 (CEST)
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!
--Inkwina 13:18, 19 June 2007 (CEST)
- Where do you read this? 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.
--Inkwina 13:57, 9 July 2007 (CEST)
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