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.
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:
- 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 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).
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 .