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
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. 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? --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. 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. --Mormegil (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2017 (EST)