Talk:Libre Puro Emblem

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Merge with Libre emblem?002:03, 10 July 2014
Couple the Libre Puro emblem with the release of the Libre Puro licence011:58, 16 August 2013
License vs Emblem?001:16, 17 December 2010

Merge with Libre emblem?

Pablo Machón suggested that "libre" should be "puro" (implicitly). So, we would need to rework and refine the libre definition and libre emblem to incorporate these ideas.

KTucker (talk)11:38, 31 July 2010

Couple the Libre Puro emblem with the release of the Libre Puro licence

So far, there has not been enough of a community around the Libre Puro License to make this worthwile. One option is to just do it and perhaps a community will grow. This would require some legal minds to apply themselves to the licence and ensure that it is not flawed. I have assumed that basing on the BSD licences is a good place to start (the simplest that could possibly work). The main reason to wait and release both at the same time is that all the CC licences require attribution. Libre Puro need not and we need a licence which does not. The closest we have had is the retired ShareAlike 1.0. Suggestions to reinstate it have not been supported (e.g. in 4.0 with a mockup).

Discussion points:

  • Are there any other libre licences out there which do not require attribution?
  • The copyleft issue - the LPL is a copyleft licence.
  • ...
KTucker (talk)11:58, 16 August 2013

License vs Emblem?

I have pondered this question from time to time and occasionally posted thoughts on related discussion pages, etc. I have come close to abandoning the idea many times and going the emblem route but always end up leaving the proposal up for consideration with perhaps some minor change to incite discussion.

The most notable development since it was proposed is CC0 (see the FAQ. The CC0/public domain options are weak if the aim is to protect the commons and encourage contributions and participation (in free culture, libre knowledge, etc.).

The current form of the proposed Libre Puro License still seems sound to me and it is still a license I would use - though as a license I might prefer a stronger "libre share" - one which requires successive derived works to retain the freedoms (copy-left-like but not requiring necessarily the exact same license).

Given this "weakness", perhaps the "license" amounts to an emblem? Perhaps such an emblem would ultimately be more "powerful".

For now, I leave the proposed license up - it is always a fun discussion point for learners.

Comments on the emblem approach are welcome.

KTucker (talk)01:16, 17 December 2010