Join our WikiEducator discussion group or Register now for free skills training.

View source

From WikiEducator

Jump to: navigation, search

[Add header]


Sorting order:
Start a new discussion
View archived threads

Contents:


Removing the "no-endorsement" clause (1)

I notice the FreeBSD license does not include:

  • Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this resource without specific prior written permission.

See also OSI on the BSD license.

Libre Knowledge vs Free Cultural Works (1)

There have been no changes to this discussion for at least 14 days. If it is concluded, you may want to write a summary.

Considering changing all references to the elegant Libre Knowledge definition to refer to the better known Free Cultural Works definition.

Wording: (1)

There have been no changes to this discussion for at least 14 days. If it is concluded, you may want to write a summary.

Is the word "perpetuates" correct (also used in the the preamble)?

e.g. If a libre puro resource is extended by incorporating CC-BY material and then released CC-BY (as required), the freedoms are retained for this one step, but the next derived work in that line may be released in a more restrictive manner (e.g. CC-BY-NC - as allowed by its new license CC-BY).

If not, what would be a better word? (please add/comment)

  • retains
  • extends
  • includes
  • upholds
  • grants
  • ...

Hi Kim,

Having scanned the license (admittedly in less detail than I would liked to, given my time contraints :-( )

Speaking in CC terms -- This would be a license which:

  • Drops the requirement for attribution (as in the early days of CC) plus
  • A requirement for open file formats :-)

I don't see that CC-BY is necessarily compatible -- because of the file formats. What if a user down the line saves the resource in a non-free format?

Candidly -- I don't licenses are effective tools to regulate intent. I would rather see everything in the public domain :-) -- but that's another complicated issue because many countries do not recognise the PD declaration in the national Copyright legislation. I see licenses as a pragmatic and necessary evil --- and that we can do far more in moving the world forward by walking the talk (as we both do.)

Thoughts?

W

You do not have permission to edit pages, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

Return to Talk:Libre Puro License.

Moral Rights? (1)

There have been no changes to this discussion for at least 14 days. If it is concluded, you may want to write a summary.

Do we need to add something equivalent to the Creative Commons clause: "Your fair dealing and other rights are in no way affected ...."? The draft Creative Commons deed ("wrapper") includes this. Does this cover "moral rights" or are those already covered in the "BSD-like" wording?

Aim (1)

There have been no changes to this discussion for at least 14 days. If it is concluded, you may want to write a summary.

To be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

In general (i.e. not only for this draft), the aim is to decouple abuses (e.g. plagiarism) from the act of making copies.

Retrieved from "http://wikieducator.org/Talk:Libre_Puro_License"