Talk:Libre Puro License

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Libre Knowledge vs Free Cultural Works202:22, 4 May 2013
Moral Rights?010:54, 2 July 2012
UK or US English spelling for 'licence' (noun)?011:29, 29 June 2012
Wording:210:54, 22 June 2012
CC 4.0 discussions: digital resources vs paper etc.011:08, 9 February 2012
Libre Puro from proposed license to emblem023:27, 30 July 2010
Removing the "no-endorsement" clause003:30, 13 November 2009
Aim002:20, 1 August 2008

Libre Knowledge vs Free Cultural Works

Edited by author.
Last edit: 02:14, 4 May 2013

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

KTucker (talk)13:32, 7 November 2009

In the CC 4.0 discussions, Anthony expressed reservations about linking to an external page for the definition of the freedoms. Rather state them in the licence. The third bullet would become something like:

Redistributions must be released under a license which (i) grants and enables the freedom to use, adapt, redistribute copies in whole or in part, and distribute modified versions, and (ii) requires that these freedoms be passed on in derived works.
KTucker (talk)02:12, 4 May 2013

I will just throw this straight in - at least for now.

KTucker (talk)02:22, 4 May 2013

Moral Rights?

Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 10:54, 2 July 2012

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?

Comment Kim Tucker 22:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC): Wikipedia on Moral rights (copyright law): While the United States became a signatory to the convention in 1989,[1] it still does not completely recognize moral rights as part of copyright law, but rather as part of other bodies of law, such as defamation or unfair competition.[2]

This separation seems sensible - Kim Tucker 22:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC).

Perhaps with LPL the author/artist is waiving the right to attribution? At least in some circumstances. But does this apply when the resource is being mixed by kids for fun? - Kim Tucker 22:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  2. Kwall, Roberta Rosenthal. "The Soul of Creativity: Forging a Moral Rights Law for the United States". Stanford University Press, 2010, p. 30.
Ktucker (talk)02:26, 1 August 2008

UK or US English spelling for 'licence' (noun)?

In UK: 'licence' for the noun and 'license' for the verb; in US: 'license' for both.

Which here? Allow either? Does it matter?

KTucker (talk)11:29, 29 June 2012
Edited by author.
Last edit: 10:53, 22 June 2012

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
  • ...
KTucker (talk)19:45, 29 September 2009

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.)



Mackiwg (talk)20:20, 29 September 2009

Hi Wayne,

Thanks for taking time to look at this.

Yes, it is very similar in intent to the old "ShareAlike" license which was not updated by Creative Commons on the path from 1.0 to 3.0. Their argument was lack of interest in the SA 1.0 license. A better argument might have been that with any CC license one is free to specify attribution as "anonymous" or "not required" (but one would have to dig deep to discover this in most cases), or that without attribution the licenses are unenforceable.

Regarding the free file format requirement:

  • > ... "What if a user down the line saves the resource in a non-free format?"
    • No problem: the new derived resource would not be "Libre Puro" and the author would have to drop the "Libre Puro" label.
  • "Free file format" may be too strong a statement. "Open file formats" might be sufficient (including e.g. OOXML ??)
  • I have thought of dropping the free file format requirement as one would be free to convert the resource into a free/open format and then adapt it, etc. The knowledge resource is "freeable". However, there may be cases where it is not. For example, what if a knowledge resource is available in a proprietary DRM-encumbered format? It might even be illegal to convert it and, in that case, we would not want to be encouraging people to try.

I still believe the license has merit:

  • Libre Puro Resources may be mixed into CC-BY-SA and CC-BY repositories such as WE and Connexions]
  • The associated freedoms are immediately obvious (as they are with the newer CC icons) including the freedom not to "attribute"
  • The simplest license that could possibly work
  • It does not criminalise kids (or anyone) for mixing and sharing - decouples abuses from the act of making copies. Other areas of the law or social processes may manage abuses (e.g. academic institutions and peers will not recognise plagiarised theses), while libre technology enables libre knowledge.

I have not "pushed" this license too hard as I often get strong "not yet another license!" reactions. When the time is right, more people will engage in this discussion and either help refine it or convince me that it is not a sound idea (not convinced yet, and there are a few issues which need to be ironed out).

Re: > "Candidly -- I don't [think] licenses are effective tools to regulate intent. ..."

The vision is for the sight of the associated emblem Libre Puro (backed up by a license) to inspire a feeling of freedom for anyone to use, adapt, share, ... and co-create the global knowledge commons.
... away from the notion of individual "ownership" of ideas, knowledge, etc.

PS The preamble and Creative Commons Deed need refinement too.

KTucker (talk)14:31, 27 October 2009

CC 4.0 discussions: digital resources vs paper etc.

Relevant points are surfacing at the CC 4.0 discussions (e.g. Dec 2011).

  • drew Roberts Sun Dec 11 09:56:55 EST 2011 pointed out that:
    • the current wording excludes printed copies.
      • Suggested wording (later): "For digital redistributions under this license must be in a free file format..."
        • How about: "Redistributions of digital representations under this license must be in a free file format ..." - (I am regarding this fix as straightforward enough to make it immediately). Thanks to drew Roberts :-) Kim Tucker 23:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Luis Villa ([Luis Villa Sun Dec 11 16:20:30 EST 2011) indicated that free file formats and being able to access and modify a resource with libre software is not sufficient to ensure the resource is libre.
    • Consider adding a clause on Protection of freedoms. - Kim Tucker 23:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
      Added a fix for the technical measures issue: digital representations under this license must be in a free file format with no technical measures which restrict the essential freedoms, and be fully editable and deployable with libre software.. By including "deployable" we cover web services which would need to be free in the GNU Affero sense. Comments? - Kim Tucker 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
KTucker (talk)11:55, 13 December 2011

Libre Puro from proposed license to emblem

After almost two and a half years, although there has been some great input and appreciative comment, there has not been strong support for this license (e.g. from FSF, WMF, CC, ...). So, the time has come to go the same route as the libre emblem.

I will keep these pages somewhere for historical interest for those who might like to do something similar, and flesh out some text for the Libre Puro Emblem.

KTucker (talk)23:27, 30 July 2010

Removing the "no-endorsement" clause

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.

KTucker (talk)03:30, 13 November 2009

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.

Ktucker (talk)00:29, 23 June 2008