Difference between revisions of "Free Culture"

From Sharewiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
m (i'll repair a little more this article soon)
m
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Free Culture''' is yet a new trend heavier promoted since the rising of the digital revoltuion's age. We could kind of agree that this trend started with the logic of applying the software 4 freedom's rules proposed from the [http://gnu.org gnu.org] for a free software license into other cultural digital works.
+
Defining '''Free culture'' needs first a definition of [[Culture]]
  
For long time, the FSF was proposing to use, if you wanted, their license for other cultural works, but they didn't promoted much and never wanted to treat the specific cultural issue of software different than primarily.
 
The FSF also soft recommended the use of a license similar in spirit to the GPL one, but much crappier in terms of ''robustness''.
 
  
This was the base, one empty niche, which the popular creative commons' foundation tried to fill ''freely''.
+
'''Free Culture''' as mostly known today, is yet a new trend heavier promoted since the rising of the digital revoltuion's age which ''kind of started'' with the logic of applying the software 4 freedom's rules proposed from the [http://gnu.org gnu.org] for a free software license into other cultural digital works.  
  
 +
However, this trend has introduced terms like ''non-derivates allowed'' or ''no significant'' in its ''own'' definition of freedom based in an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi Irrelevant Conclusion] fallacy that owner is ''free''. 
  
=The GNU FDL=
+
You better go to see the [[Free cultural works]]' page.
and its invariant sections an etcs.... !
 
  
  
=Creative commons example=
+
=Why=
[[Creative Commons]] has been a big propeller of the free culture movement. They offer one license which can be considered almost similar to the GPL for free software(CC-BY-SA) and another one which can be considered similar to the spirit of the BSD license for software (CC-BY).  
+
For long time, the FSF's proposition for cultural works was:
 +
<code>We don't taka a stand on whether other cultural works than software and software manuals have to be free, in case you want, you could:</code>
 +
#Use the GPL, just noting what you mean by 'Your Program's Sources'. (too bloated for the cultural works' end user)
 +
#Use of Art libre license. Similar in spirit to the GPL one, but much crappier in terms of ''robustness''.
 +
#Use the GNU (non)Free Documentation License for some ''practical'' cultural works.
  
They are also offering other licenses which are more restrictive, especially the CC-BY-NC-ND.
+
They didn't promoted much and never wanted to treat the specific cultural issue of software different than primarily. There wasn't the need for semi-restrictive software's licenses, nor a definition of free (other) cultural works.
 +
 +
==The GNU FDL==
 +
The origin of the free software movement as mostly know today, began with the GNU manifesto. Its author later wanted to add that manifesto in the his Free software program manual's distribution but was so afraid of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoofing spoofing] that he thoguht basic to ''don't allow modifications'' on a part of the manual(The gnu manifesto) so forced the creation of Invariant Sections within a ''free'' manual.
  
==Criticism==
+
His argument was that for software it's critic to be able to modify it for granting its functioning, but for movies there's not (utilitarian) need of not being able to modify it for using it freely.
If in the <code>freedom on the product or freedom on the owner</code>'s debate
 
  
...the conclusion is  <code>freedom should be in the owner</code> as used by the creative commons' foundation.
+
The wikipedia it's been using the GNU FDL since its origin up to 2009 when they changed into the CC BY-SA.
  
Then <code>''Free culture'' can produce non-free cultural works</code>.
 
  
...
+
=Creative commons example=
 +
[[Creative Commons]] has been a big propeller of the free culture movement. They offer one license which can be considered almost similar to the GPL for free software(CC-BY-SA) and another one which can be considered similar to the spirit of the BSD license for software (CC-BY).  
 +
==Criticism==
 +
They are also offering other licenses which are more restrictive, especially the CC-BY-NC-ND.
  
 +
<code>freedom is about being able to choose all but not completely restrictiveness</code>
  
One very psicotic behaviour is also produced by this fallaced logic:
+
<code>''Free culture'' can produce non-free cultural works. So Free culture = Unfree culture = Free unculture </code>.
<code>If you give a free cultural works promoting's option to an author, he is free to don't choose it</code>  
 
  
 +
...
  
Why then an author still and redundantly call himself free? Am i saying opposite? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language]
 
 
Why he/she still needs to call free cultural work to something he doesn't allow to modify it?
 
 
If freedom is just in the author, then Free culture = Free unculture = Unfree culture
 
 
[[Category:Sharefulism]]
 
[[Category:Sharefulism]]

Revision as of 18:07, 7 August 2010

Defining 'Free culture needs first a definition of Culture


Free Culture as mostly known today, is yet a new trend heavier promoted since the rising of the digital revoltuion's age which kind of started with the logic of applying the software 4 freedom's rules proposed from the gnu.org for a free software license into other cultural digital works.

However, this trend has introduced terms like non-derivates allowed or no significant in its own definition of freedom based in an Irrelevant Conclusion fallacy that owner is free.

You better go to see the Free cultural works' page.


Why

For long time, the FSF's proposition for cultural works was: We don't taka a stand on whether other cultural works than software and software manuals have to be free, in case you want, you could:

  1. Use the GPL, just noting what you mean by 'Your Program's Sources'. (too bloated for the cultural works' end user)
  2. Use of Art libre license. Similar in spirit to the GPL one, but much crappier in terms of robustness.
  3. Use the GNU (non)Free Documentation License for some practical cultural works.

They didn't promoted much and never wanted to treat the specific cultural issue of software different than primarily. There wasn't the need for semi-restrictive software's licenses, nor a definition of free (other) cultural works.

The GNU FDL

The origin of the free software movement as mostly know today, began with the GNU manifesto. Its author later wanted to add that manifesto in the his Free software program manual's distribution but was so afraid of spoofing that he thoguht basic to don't allow modifications on a part of the manual(The gnu manifesto) so forced the creation of Invariant Sections within a free manual.

His argument was that for software it's critic to be able to modify it for granting its functioning, but for movies there's not (utilitarian) need of not being able to modify it for using it freely.

The wikipedia it's been using the GNU FDL since its origin up to 2009 when they changed into the CC BY-SA.


Creative commons example

Creative Commons has been a big propeller of the free culture movement. They offer one license which can be considered almost similar to the GPL for free software(CC-BY-SA) and another one which can be considered similar to the spirit of the BSD license for software (CC-BY).

Criticism

They are also offering other licenses which are more restrictive, especially the CC-BY-NC-ND.

freedom is about being able to choose all but not completely restrictiveness

Free culture can produce non-free cultural works. So Free culture = Unfree culture = Free unculture .

...