Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

Category:Project

2008-02-08T08:24:25Z

Craig Hubley: A project is a proposal that has resources, deliverables and a mission. category:proposal

[[Category:Browse]]

[[Has default form::Form:Project]]

The '''Project''' category is used to categorize projects CC works on. A project is a proposal that has resources, deliverables and a mission.

[[category:proposal]]

[[Category:Project]]

== Add/Edit Project ==

<div align="center">
{{#forminput:Project|35|Add/Edit Project|}}
</div>

== By Project ==

<ask sort=Project format=broadtable mainlabel=Title>
[[Category:Project]]
</ask>

Category:License

2008-02-08T08:20:10Z

Craig Hubley: For '''license'''s, real or proposed, and clauses and legal guides and analyses of specific licenses or applications that use licenses. A license is a type of contract. category:contract

For '''license'''s, real or proposed, and clauses and legal guides and analyses of specific licenses or applications that use licenses.

A license is a type of contract.

[[category:contract]]

Share-alike

2008-02-08T08:15:50Z

Craig Hubley: #REDIRECT Share Alike for now, though probably share-alike should be defined as a generic concept separately from the legally exact Share Alike clause

#REDIRECT [[Share Alike]]

Mutual non-disclosure agreement

2008-02-08T08:14:17Z

Craig Hubley: having such an agreement sanctioned by CC could make it much easier for commercial work that is not completed or used commercially to reach the public domain or open content

A '''mutual non-disclosure agreement''' might be a fruitful addition to the [[Creative Commons licenses]] for the following reasons:
*Many existing employment and commercial agreements, even academic ones, put undue restrictions on disclosure that long outlive the useful commercial window of the knowledge or artifact being shared.
*Often rights are left in limbo when an enterprise fails or becomes acquired by another that is not continuing the original project(s).
*Contractors often need to sign such agreements for mutual defense against larger employers who might use agreements with one to compromise the other's rights.

Similar to a [[guild license]], a CC mutual NDA could provide for a rational set of [[protocol]]s and dispute resolution procedures and defaults such as mediation that would maximize the amount of non-commercially useful work reaching the [[public domain]] or released as [[open content]]. For instance, it could specify that if neither party pursues commercial use of some invention past the window when it would qualify for [[patent]] protection, then either party may document and release the information for public use. Or, it could specify that in the event of either party losing control of rights over the subject matter discussed, the other is free to do as they choose with it. While in theory these rights might prevent a very few investors or partners from working with those who sign such an agreement, in practice the use of [[free software]], [[open content]] and [[share-alike]] terms has not usually inhibited the capital funding or hiring of individuals or companies otherwise qualified.

[[category:contract]] [[category:commercial]] [[category:proposal]]

HESSLA

2008-02-08T08:05:53Z

Craig Hubley: A type of human rights license used by Hacktivismo. Visible at [http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php this URL with analysis]. category:human rights category:politics [[cat

A type of [[human rights license]] used by [[Hacktivismo]].

Visible at [http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php this URL with analysis].

[[category:human rights]] [[category:politics]] [[category:license]]

TESLA

2008-02-08T08:04:33Z

Craig Hubley: A type of human rights license used for the Torrify system. Visible at [http://xerobank.com/tesla.html this URL with analysis]. category:human rights category:politics [[category

A type of [[human rights license]] used for the [[Torrify]] system.

Visible at [http://xerobank.com/tesla.html this URL with analysis].

[[category:human rights]] [[category:politics]] [[category:license]]

CCPlus

2008-02-08T08:02:24Z

Craig Hubley: adding category:protocol

{{Project}}
{{Initiative}}

{|style="padding: 2%; border:1px solid #F3E533; background:#FCFFCD; width:100%"
|

'''CC+''' is '''CC license''' + '''Another agreement'''.

It is '''NOT''' a new license, but a facilitation of '''morePermissions''' beyond '''ANY''' standard CC licenses.

If you want to adopt CC+, please '''(1)''' implement [[#Easy_CC.2B_Markups|CC+ simple technology]] on your site, '''(2)''' [[#Adopters|add your project/company name]], and '''(3)''' [http://creativecommons.org/contact let us know!]

|}

== Simple Explanation ==

The basic concept is to have a Creative Commons license + some other agreement which provides morePermissions.

[[Image:Cc-by-nc-3.0-88x31.png]] + [[Image:Commercial-license-button.png]]


NOTE: Above, the CC license should link to the human deed and the generic commercial license would link to a place to get a commercial license for a work. The COMMERCIAL LICENSE is generic and should be tailored for specific uses with specific names of copyright holders.



[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/b/b4/Commercial-license-button.svg Here is the SVG (vector graphic)] to the generic button if you would like to construct a commercial licensing button for your usage. The button is [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain released into the public domain].


== Summary ==

CC+ is a protocol providing a simple way for users to get rights
beyond the rights granted by a CC license. For example, a work's Creative
Commons license might offer noncommercial rights. With CC+, the
license can also provide a link by which a user might secure rights beyond noncommercial
rights -- most obviously commercial rights, but also additional permissions or
services such as warranty, permission to use without attribution, or even access to performance or physical media.

The CC+ architecture gives businesses a simple way to move
between the sharing and commercial economies. CC+ provides a
lightweight standard around these best practices and is available for
implementation immediately.

==Solvable Problems==

=== Legal ===

Creative Commons has solved this with Creative Commons licensing. Creative Commons has this one locked down. Rely on CC.

* [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/d/da/Cc-general.pdf What is CC?] - One Page (pdf)

=== Human ===

Creative Commons has structured this so that you and/or your project can implement the rest of the social part to this equation.

* [[Image:Ccplus-general.pdf]] - CC and CC+ Overview for the World Wide Web (pdf)
* Concepts and Pieces
** healthy ecosystem

=== Technical ===

Similar to [[#Human]], CC has structured the Technical part of CC+ so that you can implement the technical standard to be in compliance.

* [[Image:Ccplus-technical.pdf]] - CC+ Technical Implementation for the World Wide Web (pdf) explaining how to add CC+ functionality to your site.
* Concepts and Pieces
** [[RDFa]] and morePermissions
** [[OpenStar]]

==Easy CC+ Markups==

===Simplest CC+ Example ===

<pre>
My Book by Jon Phillips is licensed under a

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/">Creative Commons
Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 License</a>.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at
<a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" rel="cc:morePermissions"
href="http://somecompany.com/revenue_sharing_agreement">somecompany.com</a>.
</pre>

===A complete CC+ Implementation===

<pre>


My Book by
<a rel="cc:attributionURL" property="cc:attributionName" href="http://rejon.org/my_book">Jon Phillips</a>

is licensed under a

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/">Creative Commons
Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 License</a>.


Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at
<a rel="cc:morePermissions"
href="http://somecompany.com/revenue_sharing_agreement">somecompany.com</a>.


</pre>

=== A simple example of custom agreement on the same page ===

<pre>
<a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" rel="cc:morePermissions" href="#agreement">below</a>

<a id="agreement">The Agreement</a>
... agreement text...
</pre>

=== A simple agreement leading to mailto ===

<pre>
<a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"
rel="cc:morePermissions" href="mailto:someuser@somedomain.com">custom license</a>
</pre>

== Use Cases ==

* Restrict commercial use with a CC license with the NonCommercial condition, and then use a separate agreement with some party (could be yourself or third-party) to broker commercial rights (licensing, sales, reproduction, etc).
* Require that adaptions are shared with a CC license with the ShareAlike condition, but offer a separate agreement (as above) for parties that do not want to release derivatives under the same license. Similar use cases for offering a private agreement for parties that wish to avoid fulfilling the Attribution or NoDerivatives properties of applicable CC licenses.
* Offer a private agreement for parties that require one (eg for institutional policy or insurance reasons), even if their use would be within the scope of the public license grant.
* To implement some type of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Performer_Protocol Street Performer Protocol] system to put works to the public domain or into another license, preferably more free and in the community interest.

== Media ==

* The basics of this idea were formulated for [http://www.slideshare.net/rejon/phillips-remix-cycle-pixelodeon-2007 Pixelodeon 2007 slides].
* [http://support.creativecommons.org/videos#ccp CC+ Video] by Eric Steuer. Script text [[CCPlus_video_script|here]].
* [[Image:Ccplus-general.pdf]] - CC and CC+ Overview for the World Wide Web (pdf)
* [[Image:Ccplus-technical.pdf]] - CC+ Technical Implementation for the World Wide Web (pdf)
* [[Image:Cc_plus_cc_zero_pr.pdf]] CC+ Official Press Release (pdf)

<gallery>
Image:Ccplus slides.035.jpg
Image:Ccplus slides.039.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.044.jpg
</gallery>

== Examples ==

===Jamendo===
<gallery>
Image:Ccplus_slides.046.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.047.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.048.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.050.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.051.jpg
</gallery>

===Magnatune===
<gallery>
Image:Ccplus_slides.052.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.053.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.054.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.055.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.057.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.058.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.059.jpg
</gallery>

===BeatPick===
<gallery>
Image:Ccplus_slides.061.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.062.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.063.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.064.jpg
Image:Ccplus_slides.065.jpg
</gallery>

=== Mockups ===

* [[CCPlus Integration Mockups]]
* [[Facebook CC+ Integration]]
* [[Virb CC Integration|Virb CC+ Integration]]
* [[Myspace CCPlus Integration|Myspace CC+ Integration]]
* [[Imeem CCPlus Integration|imeem CC+ Integration]]

=== Actual ===

* [[Strayform CCPlus Integration|Strayform CC+ Integration]]

== Adopters ==

* [[Blip.tv]]
* [[Jamendo]]
* [[Magnatune]]
* [[Beatpick]]
* [[RightsAgent]]
* [[Youlicense]]
* [[Strayform]]
* [[Cloakx]]
* [[Copyright Clearance Center]]
* Add your project here!

== FAQ ==

=== What is a simple way of explaining CC+? ===

CC+ is just what it sounds like, a Creative Commons license plus another agreement. A copyright holder might pair a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license [CC] with a non-exclusive commercial agreement [+] enabling a company to license the work commercially for a fee.

=== Isn't CC+ just a technological facilitation of dual licensing? ===

Yes. A copyright holder who uses a Creative Commons license is already adding a license on top of their copyright. CC+ can make it easier for that copyright-holder to add other non-exclusive licenses/agreements as alternatives.

== External Links ==

* http://labs.creativecommons.org/metadata
* Press
** http://blogs.magnatune.com/buckman/2007/12/creative-common.html
** http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/general/15548/creative-commons-launches-cc0-cc-programs
** http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/12/19/1948209.shtml
** http://reddevnews.com/news/article.aspx?editorialsid=9377
** http://www.adtmag.com/article.aspx?id=21771
* Research
** http://www.warsystems.hu/?p=517
** http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7711
** http://blogs.photopreneur.com/how-to-get-paid-for-your-flickr-photos

==How do you get involved?==
Jump on over to the [http://creativecommons.org/contact CC-Community and/or CC-Licenses email lists] for further discussion on CCPlus.

[[category:protocol]]

Open Access Data protocol

2008-02-08T07:59:43Z

Craig Hubley: category:protocol category:science category:Open Access

The '''Open Access Data protocol''' is an incremental approach to avoid having to get a uniform [[science license]] widely accepted.

The [http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/ explanation of the problems with using existing licenses] is quite specific:
*"Any solution based on rights will result in categorization errors: the application of obligations based on copyright in situations where it is not necessary (for example, a share-alike license on the copyrightable elements may be falsely assumed to operate on the factual contents of a database). In the reverse, a user might assume that the “Facts Are Free” status of the non-copyrightable elements extends to the entire database and inadvertently infringe."
*"Many users choose to apply common-use licenses such as the GPL and CC in order to declare their intent: thus, a user might choose to apply a “copyleft” term to the copyrightable elements of a database, in hopes that those elements result in additional open access database elements coming online. But a user would be able to extract the entire contents (to the extent those contents are uncopyrightable factual content) and republish those contents without observing the copyleft or share-alike terms. The data provider, based on our research, is likely to feel “tricked” by this outcome. That is not a desired result. For this reason, the use of such licenses fails to provide a high degree of of ease of use and legal certainty."
*"if attribution is required as part of a license approach. In a world of database integration and federation, attribution can easily cascade into a burden for scientists if a category error is made. Would a scientist need to attribute 40,000 data depositors in the event of a query across 40,000 data sets? How does this relate to the evolved norms of citation within a discipline, and does the attribution requirement indeed conflict with accepted norms in some disciplines? Indeed, failing to give attribution to all 40,000 sources could be the basis for a copyright infringement suit at worst, and at best, imposes a significant transaction cost on the scientist using the data. Therefore, a legal obligation to give attribution violates the principle of low transaction costs."

[[category:protocol]] [[category:science]] [[category:Open Access]]

User:Craig Hubley

2008-02-08T07:54:02Z

Craig Hubley: just sorting out proposals and projects

Presently trying to sort out the [[:category:proposal|proposals]] and [[:category:project|projects]] to see which really belong where.

Recently restored some useful content somehow lost in the upgrade of the wiki three years ago, which seems directly relevant to current initiatives or has basic definitions of clauses or parameters that a number of projects need.

Interested in discussing the [[freedoms license]], [[human rights license]], [[science license]] and [[guild license]] proposals in particular.

Alleged and collective identity

2008-02-08T07:51:01Z

Craig Hubley: category:identity

''The following was contributed by [[anonymous trolls]] in 2004. Feel free to keep editing it.''

'''Alleged and collective identity''' problems can complicate [[attribution]]. Not everyone will [[claim identity]] clearly and verifiably.

Present licenses including the [[GFDL]] and [[CC-by]] (and its relatives) deal very poorly with the issue of allegations of authorship by anonymous, pseudonymous or co-operating parties. They don't even deal well with collectives or other common constructs, e.g. [[rights collective]]s which represent classes of creators in a [[rights market]]. This is a serious long-term problem that plagues the [[GFDL corpus]] in particular and makes [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s less likely to ever become large, well-funded, public institutions.

There are various solutions advanced, in order of frequency:
# trust a small clique of administrators to use such means as [[IP address]] association to decide "who wrote what" and to publish that on some archived medium like a [[mailing list]] - thereafter treating those beliefs as true regardless of their potential flaws and liabilities. ''This has been instituted at [[Wikipedia]] and all other [[Wikimedia]] [[web service]]s.''
# ban anonymous, pseudonymous, and proxying users entirely - force everyone to declare they wrote text themselves and are submitting it under their own name - the "[[use real names]] rule". ''This has been instituted at Meatball Wiki and on many [[political blog]]s.''
# require some kind of [[faction]]al identification of edits so that people of similar ideological or political beliefs are examining writings to determine if they are part of more widely held beliefs or not, and to take collective forms of responsibility for their publication and control of [[trolls]]. ''This is being instituted at [[OurAnswer]] and [[Consumerium]].''

Each approach has its disadvantages. 1, obviously, relies on too few people in too concentrated a position of power - if they decide to advance absurd ideas as a smear campaign or propaganda effort, there is little anyone else can do to counter it, without direct access to the same systems data. 2, just as obviously, excludes the obviously large number of participants who prefer or require anonymous contribution as an option. While 3 is somewhat complex and requires any so-called "[[troll]]" or "dissident" or "controversial" edits to be reviewed by people who hold identifiably similar views and can say reliably whether they are idiosyncratic, typical or otherwise something that is "original" or just derivative.

[[category:identity]]

Share Alike

2008-02-08T07:49:29Z

Craig Hubley: /* shareware, science, documentation */ ''Note: CC-wiki does this to some degree.''

''The following was contributed by [[anonymous trolls]] in 2004. It is rather amazing that it was not ported into [[this wiki]] from its predecessor rather than continuing to be enhanced. An exact definition of this concept is one of the foundations of CC itself.''

The '''Share Alike''' option of the [[Creative Commons public license]] is a specific interpretation of the general [[share-alike]] ideal which is also found in [[copyleft]] (i.e. [[Free Software]]).

== share with (some) others ==

The SA license is similar to a [[consortium license]] or other [[peer group]] contracts.

The CC concept of Share Alike means strictly and only "share with (some) others on the same terms they have shared with you". It does not require that this sharing be with "everyone" as in "copyleft". Though that is an option (the [[CC-by-sa]] for instance) in the CC [[parametric license]] regime it is not a universal: the [[CC-by-nc-sa]] for instance does not share with commercial parties. In this sense it is like a sort of nonprofit [[consortium license]].

== shareware, science, documentation ==

Its general concept of sharing might include for instance a:

*[[shareware license]] where all who have paid a certain license fee might have the right to [[source code]], but all others not.

*[[science license]] where all who have followed the [[scientific method]] may be able to make [[derivative work]]s, but others would be subject to a [[NoDerivs]] restriction, as their derivative works would not advance science.

*[[CC-by-sa-fd]] which would enable sharing of [[GFDL corpus]] into the [[Common Content]] base. ''Note: [[CC-wiki]] does this to some degree.''

== not all Common Content is SA ==

Share Alike is orthogonal to [[Common Content]] as the latter includes both SA and non-SA terms on that content.

== open content, free software are SA ==

The generic idea of [[share-alike]] is probably the base concept of [[open content]], [[Free Software]], which apply additional requirements that SA alone doesn't:

*open content requires more careful specific [[attribution]]
*Free Software requires sharing with literally everyone

Accordingly it is possible to bring both of these ultimately into the [[parametric license]] regime both as SA licenses.

== open source is not SA ==

Open source requires sharing with literally everyone but does not require them to share back with you - they can make their own proprietary extensions and enhancements and can withhold them. Accordingly open source is simply not SA but is more like the [[CC-by]] - though open source does not in many cases guarantee credit or any means of creator validation. It is a simple gift to everyone that can be used against its creator, or against its creator's values.

[[category:license]]

Share Alike

2008-02-08T07:47:54Z

Craig Hubley: category:license unless it should be license_clause or something

''The following was contributed by [[anonymous trolls]] in 2004. It is rather amazing that it was not ported into [[this wiki]] from its predecessor rather than continuing to be enhanced. An exact definition of this concept is one of the foundations of CC itself.''

The '''Share Alike''' option of the [[Creative Commons public license]] is a specific interpretation of the general [[share-alike]] ideal which is also found in [[copyleft]] (i.e. [[Free Software]]).

== share with (some) others ==

The SA license is similar to a [[consortium license]] or other [[peer group]] contracts.

The CC concept of Share Alike means strictly and only "share with (some) others on the same terms they have shared with you". It does not require that this sharing be with "everyone" as in "copyleft". Though that is an option (the [[CC-by-sa]] for instance) in the CC [[parametric license]] regime it is not a universal: the [[CC-by-nc-sa]] for instance does not share with commercial parties. In this sense it is like a sort of nonprofit [[consortium license]].

== shareware, science, documentation ==

Its general concept of sharing might include for instance a:

*[[shareware license]] where all who have paid a certain license fee might have the right to [[source code]], but all others not.

*[[science license]] where all who have followed the [[scientific method]] may be able to make [[derivative work]]s, but others would be subject to a [[NoDerivs]] restriction, as their derivative works would not advance science.

*[[CC-by-sa-fd]] which would enable sharing of [[GFDL corpus]] into the [[Common Content]] base.

== not all Common Content is SA ==

Share Alike is orthogonal to [[Common Content]] as the latter includes both SA and non-SA terms on that content.

== open content, free software are SA ==

The generic idea of [[share-alike]] is probably the base concept of [[open content]], [[Free Software]], which apply additional requirements that SA alone doesn't:

*open content requires more careful specific [[attribution]]
*Free Software requires sharing with literally everyone

Accordingly it is possible to bring both of these ultimately into the [[parametric license]] regime both as SA licenses.

== open source is not SA ==

Open source requires sharing with literally everyone but does not require them to share back with you - they can make their own proprietary extensions and enhancements and can withhold them. Accordingly open source is simply not SA but is more like the [[CC-by]] - though open source does not in many cases guarantee credit or any means of creator validation. It is a simple gift to everyone that can be used against its creator, or against its creator's values.

[[category:license]]

Group commits to public

2008-02-08T07:46:18Z

Craig Hubley: category:license unless clauses or license clause should be a different category

''The following was contributed by [[anonymous trolls]] in 2004. Feel free to keep editing it.''

What a '''group commits to public''' might vary drastically from what each [[participant commits to group]] use. For one thing, not all tools and methods used in the process of creating a work are necessarily visible as the output: what is published might be only a tiny fraction of what was written, factored and reviewed in private. The group might be in possession of some skill or facility that it wishes to retain as an advantage in the marketplace, and may wish to allow only some temporary use of this facility to participants who might be restricted from copying it elsewhere. Finally, the group may only be possible to form or sustain if it has a commercial interest separate from that of the participants in the value of the works it facilitates. For all these reasons there may be a need for a variance in the commitments on the inputs and those on the visible output.

A [[Share Alike]] license might still be applied by a group to its public works even if it has severe restrictions and obligations - but it probably cannot offer the same obligations to every participant, e.g. the [[Green Party of Canada Living Platform Terms of Use]] which distinguish carefully between "participant to party" obligations (under [[CC-by]]) and '''party to public''' obligations (under [[CC-by-nc-sa]]).

[[category:license]]

Participant commits to group

2008-02-08T07:44:59Z

Craig Hubley: category:license

''The following was contributed by [[anonymous trolls]] in 2004. Feel free to keep editing it.''

In any [[web service]] or other creative or interactive effort, a '''participant commits to group''' review and use of something that is provided by that participant. Once that group is "[[done]]" with that material, the [[group commits to public]] use of some kind, even if it is a quite restricted notion of a "public".

The factors that determine what a participant commits to a group are many and difficult to codify. A [[Creative Commons Public License]] assumes that they may be seeking ultimate control of the material ([[NoDerivs]]) in which case the group can only make [[simple compilation]]s for itself or the public. Or, they may be seeking just [[attribution]], or to impose lateral or "[[Share Alike]]" [[terms of use]] on all other users - holding them to the very same obligations as themselves. In which case, those obligations actually define the group, and all participants must commit equally to the public under exactly the same license.

There are other aspects of what a participant commits to a group beyond [[Common Content]]:

For instance there may be a [[nondisclosure agreement]] respecting the way the work was made, or a [[non-compete agreement]], or a general understanding to act in accordance with the interests of all the group's members. A [[guild license]] for instance would probably require all of these things and allow for recourse in case of any non-compliance by the participant. There are also of course [[corporate license]]s or [[outright release]]s of all rights including [[moral rights]].

[[category:license]]

Category:Proposal

2008-02-08T07:42:24Z

Craig Hubley: a proposal is not a project (yet) - the category scheme is a mess and needs quite a lot of work

Any '''proposal''' for a project that is not currently undertaken by any [[Creative Commons]] affiliated agency should go in this category. Once approved it will be listed as a [[:category:project]] of which there are various different kinds.

Human rights license

2008-02-08T07:38:14Z

Craig Hubley: A less good example is the freedoms license currently in development.

Two good examples of a '''human rights license''' that forbids use by human rights violating parties:
*[http://www.xerobank.com/tesla.html Torrify Ethical Software License Agreement] ([[TESLA]] visible [http://xerobank.com/tesla.html here])
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivismo_Enhanced-Source_Software_License_Agreement Hacktivismo Enhanced Source Software License Agreement] ([[HESSLA]] visible [http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php here])

A less good example is the [[freedoms license]] currently in development.

These are [[share-alike]] licenses that forbid use by one specific class of persons and institutions, those being human rights violators. [[Hacktivismo]] and [[Xerobank]] refer to these licenses as part of the [[free software]] movement and argue, similarly to [[Richard Stallman]], that they support a broader definition of freedom than mere access to source code. [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html Stallman and GNU generally reject this claim], but certainly it's justifiable if freedom is understood as guaranteed by human rights law, treaty and convention. Some licenses already contained clauses to deny use to rights-violating parties, such as the [[original BSD license]].

The modern licenses are extremely clear but are generally considered hard to enforce, as would be a [[peace license]] or [[green license]]. However, such a license remains a potential candidate for a [[future]] [[Creative Commons Public License]]. ''This category of human rights violators overlaps commercial and non-commercial use and accordingly cannot be defined within the existing license scopes.''

The Hacktivismo/Xerobank type of license states that private use is unlimited, except that unlike GPL, it may not be modified to include trojans, security compromising programs, spyware, or other malwares. It also prohibits modification of xB Browser for use with commercial proxy services other than XeroBank, which may be to prevent any such commercial service from being used at all, since commercial services are easy to subvert or bribe.

== rights and freedoms protected in a human rights license ==

Taken from the premable to the TESLA:

"The Freedoms We Promote: When we speak of the freedom of end-users, we are talking about basic freedoms recognized in the Hactivismo Declaration,[fn2] the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,[fn3] the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[fn4] and other documents that recognize and promote freedom and human dignity. Principal among these freedoms are:
[fn2] [http://Hacktivismo.com/about/declarations/]
[fn3] [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm]
[fn4] [http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html]

=== freedom of expression ===

Freedom of Expression: The freedom of opinion and expression "include[s] freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,"[fn5] and the freedom to choose one's own medium of expression. The arbitrary use of technological censorship measures to block or prevent access to broad categories of speech and expression including the work of critics, intellectuals, artists, journalists, and religious figures is seldom, if ever, justified by any legitimate governmental objective. And, to the extent that technology enables censorship decisions to be removed from public scrutiny and review, technology-based censorship mechanisms are especially suspect and dangerous to civil society. When repressive governments and other institutions of power seek to deprive people of this basic freedom, people have the right to secure, employ and deploy the tools necessary to reclaim the freedoms to which they are justifiably entitled.

[fn5] Article 19, [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]].

== freedom of collective action and association ==

Freedom of Collective Action and Association: People have and should have the "freedom of peaceful assembly and association."[fn6] This freedom includes the right of people to work together to secure constructive change in their personal, economic, and political circumstances. When repressive governments or other institutions of power seek to deprive people (including users of the Internet) of their freedoms of voluntary assembly, association, and common enterprise, people have the right to secure, employ and deploy technologies that reclaim the freedoms to which they are justifiably entitled.

[fn6] Article 20(1), Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

== freedoms of thought, conscience, sexuality and religion ==

Freedoms of Thought, Conscience, Sexuality, and Religion: People have and should have the freedom of "thought, conscience, and religion."[fn7] This right "includes freedom to change religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others, in public or private, to manifest any religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance, regardless of doctrine."[fn8] Every person, regardless of sex or sexual preference, and with reciprocal respect for the corresponding rights of all others, has and should have the right to determine and choose, freely and without coercion, whether, how and with whom he or she shall fully enjoy the most private and personal aspects of human life, including individual sexuality, reproduction, and fertility. Moreover, "[t]he explicit recognition and reaffirmation of the right of all women to control all aspects of their health, in particular their own fertility, is basic to their empowerment."[fn9] When repressive governments and other institutions of power seek to deprive people of these basic freedoms, they have the right to secure, employ and deploy the tools necessary to reclaim the freedoms to which they are justifiably entitled.
[fn7] Article 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
[fn8] Id.
[fn9] Paragraph 17, Beijing Declaration of the Fourth United Nations Conference on Women (Sept. 15, 1995).

== privacy ==

Freedom of Privacy: Every person has the right to be free from "subject[ion] to arbitrary interference with his [or her] privacy, family, home or correspondence"[fn10] -- digitally, or by any other means or methodology. This freedom of privacy includes the right to be free from governmental or private surveillance that might interfere with or deter the rightful exercise of any other freedoms of any person. In the context of software tools that enable people to reclaim their freedoms, all end-users have and should have the right to secure and use tools that are free from the surreptitious insertion into their software of "backdoors," "spy-ware," escrow mechanisms, or other code or techniques that might promote surveillance, or subvert security (including cryptographic security), confidentiality, anonymity, authenticity and/or trust.

[fn10] Article 12, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

=== enhance governtment accountability ===

Enhance Government Accountability: To this end, we have sought and intend to ensure, to the fullest extent that law (including, without limitation, the law of contract and of copyright licensing) enables us to do so,[fn16] that no government or other institution may do anything with this computer software or the underlying source code without becoming a Licensee bound by the terms of this License Agreement, subject to the same restrictions on modification and use as anyone else.
[fn16] "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating . . . fundamental rights . . ." Article 8, United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

[[category:proposal]] [[category:human rights]] [[category:politics]] [[category:license]]

Freedoms license

2008-02-08T07:36:42Z

Craig Hubley: ''Currently explained under the bad page name freedomslicense. An example of a human rights license.''

''Currently explained under the [[bad page name]] [[freedomslicense]]. An example of a [[human rights license]].''

Peace license

2008-02-08T07:35:52Z

Craig Hubley: A more current proposal is a human rights license and one already ongoing is the freedoms license.''

''The following was originally contributed by [[anonymous trolls]] to the predecessor of [[this wiki]] in 2004, except for text in italics. A more current proposal is a [[human rights license]] and one already ongoing is the [[freedoms license]].''

A '''peace license''' forbidding military and some police uses is a potential candidate for a [[future]] [[Creative Commons Public License]]. ''This category overlaps commercial and non-commercial use and accordingly cannot be defined within the existing license scopes.''

Some licenses already contain such clauses, like the [[WarFTP license]] or the [[original BSD license]]. ''The [[TESLA]] is an example of a [[human rights license]] with peace promotion as one of its primary goals, as it forbids use by governments that violate human rights, a category which corresponds with aggressive nations.''

It being increasingly common to challenge war as a global policy option, some people will arguably prefer to exclude not just commercial users (with [[CC-by-nc-sa]]) but also those noncommercial military or police uses that they consider oppressive or to be escalating rather than resolving violence.

Obviously, the terms here would be tricky. This might have to be a [[parametric license]] specifying more exactly what the restrictions were, with some very restrictive defaults, e.g. to permit only nonviolent private use, and medical and social services use in private or public sector without any use in any [[law enforcement]] activities of any kind.

A [[green license]] would probably have to be a variant of this license or allow easy combination with it.

[[category:proposal]] [[category:science]] [[category:license]]

Shareware license

2008-02-08T07:33:08Z

Craig Hubley: category:proposal category:license category:shareware

''This is [[speculative content]] about a potential [[future]] [[parametric license]]. It was originally contributed by [[anonymous trolls]] in 2004.''

Could a '''shareware license''' become part of a [[future]] [[Creative Commons Public License]] regime? It would certainly cut the number of bizarre and strange shareware terms and encourage authors to encourage their users to create [[Common Content]] with their software, or compatible with their software.

For instance, game developers could encourage the development of scenarios licensed as CC.

To deal with the many variant terms, probably this would have to be a [[parametric license]] to allow for the specification of [[expiry date]]s, [[price]], and other [[terms of use]] that might apply such as the [[nondisclosure agreement]] clause that typically restricts re-engineering.

[[category:proposal]] [[category:license]] [[category:shareware]]

Guild license

2008-02-08T07:32:06Z

Craig Hubley: category:proposal category:license

''This is [[speculative content]] about a potential [[future]] [[parametric license]]. It was originally contributed by [[anonymous trolls]] in 2004.''

A '''guild license''' is a way to deal with content shared among a specific group of people, possibly those who use it in their work as a method or tool, and who do not make it publicly available to everyone. It would apply quite specific conditions including potentially a [[mutual nondisclosure|mutual]] [[nondisclosure agreement]] and [[non-compete agreement]] for certain uses.

It would be [[Share Alike]] only to a small group of participants - unknown participants would be effectively excluded since what such [[participant commits to group]] use isn't of any use or value if they don't already have access to the '''guild''' knowledge base or tools.

It would be a [[parametric license]] so it could enable a [[rights market]] between the guild-certified participants, who would not have to meet each other or ask permission or negotiate anything except the price to apply a certain tool or method to a certain job on a one-time basis. All other terms would be defined clearly in the '''guild license''' itself.

Such licenses might make it much easier to form lateral associations of craftspeople who all had a common commitment to a single [[code of ethics]] or professional [[best practices]] regime. This might allow for much more rapid [[creative network]] formation, though it would not increase the public's access to the guild's closely-held educational content, which would be kept for the exclusive use of those who adhered to the ethics and practices, as in most professions.

Such a license increases [[Common Content]] by letting any small group create its own detailed restrictions or conditions that are satisfied by some method regulated by itself, but without any need to ask direct permission of others who agree to the same terms and have the same certifications and mutual agreements to ensure a certain high quality of output or to restrict access to certain dangerous tools to ethical persons.

Such a group gains the benefits of a small amount of Common Content they create amongst themselves but retain the power to withdraw it if someone acts against the ethics and interests of the whole industry. This model is basically a more open kind of corporation or union but that commits to CC-like terms only among "its own people" as long as they are in compliance. Such an option could bring in lots of groups of influence including perhaps the [[Writers Guild of America]] or [[Certified Linux Professionals]] and so on.

An interesting possibility is that if the group or '''guild''' disbands or if it goes bankrupt, an [[escrow agreement]] applies so that all of its work can be placed under [[license]] that allows the work itself to continue under compatible values, e.g. [[GPL]], [[CC-by-sa]], [[CC-by-nc-sa]], [[peace license]] or [[green license]], that would continue to reflect the group's values (sharing only, sharing among those who do not profit from it, peace, non-extinction) even if the group itself no longer exists - and thus no longer has interests nor any capacity to project its [[code of ethics]] in any other way than its choice of default license.

[[category:proposal]] [[category:license]]

Parametric license

2008-02-08T07:30:38Z

Craig Hubley:

''The following is adapted from older content contributed by [[anonymous trolls]] in 2004. It has been only slightly modified.''

A '''parametric license''' is a [[license]] either mechanically generated or chosen from options and fill-in-the-blanks.
The [[Creative Commons Open Office extension]] for instance makes it easy to choose a CC license based on such input(s).

Commodity markets rely on many such [[parametrized contract]]s. The [[Creative Commons]] regime has relatively fewer options.
Legally, a distinct specific license emerges when the blanks are all filled in, and it may not necessarily be as easy to
understand or enforce as all the other possible licenses generated or chosen, though that would be an ideal outcome for
most users.

There is nothing preventing [[future]] Creative Commons licenses from having genuine blanks or options, though they should be numeric or chosen from short lists whose combinations can be handled predictably without requiring anyone to seek permission.
The [[CCplus]] and [[CC0]] [[protocol]]s are attempts to move in this direction.

Open Source originated due to the demand for some options that free software did not allow
for. Partly in response to this, even the [[GFDL]] has some ability to vary conditions, for Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Text and Back-Cover Text in particular. Strangely, some people object to these parameters as somehow being reflective of a ''lack'' of freedom, although its not clear why they want or need the "freedom" to alter authorship, institutional affiliations, at will.
''It's a common confusion to believe that free sofware and open source are merely differentiated by marketing approach. This is clearly not true. Free software is [[share alike]] and [[open source]] clearly is not. [[Creative Commons]] uses the [[copyleft]] symbol for share-alike to help make this clear to legally naive users.''

A more real-world pragmatic approach would rely more on '''parametric license'''s drawing on constraints from the real legal and political world, e.g. [[green license]], [[peace license]], [[human rights license]], [[science license]] or [[guild license]].

Current options won't work. For instance if someone refuses to give their work for free to the Pentagon they cannot write [[Free Software]] or "Open Source" or even use [[CC-by-nc-sa]] - but they can write [[Common Content]] sharable among a smaller group, which we might call [[guild content]] as opposed to [[open content]]. So what we have in [[Creative Commons Public License]] is a base of correct decisions from which to strike out in a different [[Share Alike]] focused direction, not the dead end of "open source" which just created issues with proliferation of versions and licenses and never brought in [[shareware]], [[guild]]s or [[union]]s, or the nonprofit groups that only want to share with each other.

[[category:license]] [[category:protocol]]

Parametric license

2008-02-08T07:29:01Z

Craig Hubley: category:license category:protocol

A '''parametric license''' is a [[license]] either mechanically generated or chosen from options and fill-in-the-blanks.
The [[Creative Commons Open Office extension]] for instance makes it easy to choose a CC license based on such input(s).

Commodity markets rely on many such parametrized licenses. The [[Creative Commons]] regime has relatively fewer options.
Legally, a distinct specific license emerges when the blanks are all filled in, and it may not necessarily be as easy to
understand or enforce as all the other possible licenses generated or chosen, though that would be an ideal outcome for
most users.

There is nothing preventing [[future]] Creative Commons licenses from having genuine blanks or options, though they should be numeric or chosen from short lists whose combinations can be handled predictably without requiring anyone to seek permission.
The [[CCplus]] and [[CC0]] [[protocol]]s are attempts to move in this direction.

Open Source originated due to the demand for some options that free software did not allow
for. Partly in response to this, even the [[GFDL]] has some ability to vary conditions, for Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Text and Back-Cover Text in particular. Strangely, some people object to these parameters as somehow being reflective of a ''lack'' of freedom, although its not clear why they want or need the "freedom" to alter authorship, institutional affiliations, at will.
''It's a common confusion to believe that free sofware and open source are merely differentiated by marketing approach. This is clearly not true. Free software is [[share alike]] and [[open source]] clearly is not. [[Creative Commons]] uses the [[copyleft]] symbol for share-alike to help make this clear to legally naive users.''

A more real-world pragmatic approach would rely more on '''parametric license'''s drawing on constraints from the real legal and political world, e.g. [[green license]], [[peace license]], [[human rights license]], [[science license]] or [[guild license]].

Current options won't work. For instance if someone refuses to give their work for free to the Pentagon they cannot write [[Free Software]] or "Open Source" or even use [[CC-by-nc-sa]] - but they can write [[Common Content]] sharable among a smaller group, which we might call [[guild content]] as opposed to [[open content]]. So what we have in [[Creative Commons Public License]] is a base of correct decisions from which to strike out in a different [[Share Alike]] focused direction, not the dead end of "open source" which just created issues with proliferation of versions and licenses and never brought in [[shareware]], [[guild]]s or [[union]]s, or the nonprofit groups that only want to share with each other.

[[category:license]] [[category:protocol]]

No restrictions on field of use

2008-02-08T07:20:13Z

Craig Hubley: Both Free Software and "open source" require that there be '''no restrictions on field of use''' in which software is applied. This is an extremely controversial rule that is not followed in th

''The following was contributed by [[anonymous trolls]] to the predecessor of [[this wiki]] in 2004. Feel free to keep editing it.''

Both [[Free Software]] and "open source" require that there be '''no restrictions on field of use''' in which software is applied.

This is an extremely controversial rule that is not followed in the [[Creative Commons]] [[parametric license]] regime, although it is an option. The [[CC-by-nc-sa]] in particular does restrict and prevent '''commercial use'''
- accordingly [[Common Content]] need not be "free" by the definition in use by the ideologists at Debian or any other nerd group more interested in technology than in values.

''See [[problems with free software and open source models]] for related problems that are solved or at least addressed as options in the [[Creative Commons Public License]]s.''

Essay on terms of use

2008-02-08T07:17:59Z

Craig Hubley: Terms of use''' are what a web serviceparticipant commits to groups (including corporations) that operate the web service - usually including some agreements not to hack the service or cause i

''The following was contributed by [[anonymous trolls]] to the predecessor of [[this wiki]] in 2004. Feel free to keep editing it.''

'''Terms of use''' are what a [[web service]][[participant commits to group]]s (including corporations) that operate the web service - usually including some agreements not to hack the service or cause it to fail, or copy it.

The [[Creative Commons wiki]] terms are what you see when you [[edit page]]s in [[this wiki]]:

:"all contributions to CreativeCommons are considered to be released under the [[CC-by|Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License]] (see [[CreativeCommons:Copyrights]] for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"

Many web and other software terms of use are considered far too restrictive or to create liability by "[[trying to own everything]]". For instance [[political party]] websites are often subject to malevolent users and have content that may be contributed specifically to get them in legal or political trouble. If they own all content contributed, then, this is more likely, as they then control it and are legally obligated to remove it quickly.

Some organizations try to encourage sharing and make it easier and simpler to copy content from their site. An example of use of the [[CC-by]] and [[CC-by-nc-sa]] in such '''terms''' is the [[Green Party of Canada Living Platform Terms of Use]]. Like[[Creative Commons]], what a [[participant commits to group]] is under [[CC-by]]. But unlike CC, what a [[group commits to public]] is under [[CC-by-nc-sa]] and not [[CC-by]].

While user comment can still be picked up and used by others including rival parties "as is" under [[CC-by]], the difference permits the [[Green Party of Canada]] to retain commercial publication rights in its compilations of policy works and frequently asked questions, though they may be extended by other nonprofit groups and republished as part of THEIR communications - which is presumably what the Greens want to happen. The initial contributions cannot be under [[Share Alike]] terms since what the participant commits to the group is not the same as what the group commits to the public.

Also, [[attribution obligation]]s are explicitly spelled out - if one does not use the mandated means ([[tikiwiki]] login) to [[claim identity]] then the attribution right is waived, and in any case a right to apply a [[collective attribution]] "Living Platform participants" is always reserved. Though this seems to very much weaken the attribution right, it is strengthened by the promise that a best-effort will be made within the limits of the software and that it "will be accurate and follow generally accepted conventions regarding journalistic sources." Including the right to keep [[confidential source]]s names from those who "demand" them and could use [[CC-by]] to pry them out of the Party.

This is a neat solution to a hard problem.

''[[speculative content]]: a [[future]] license might actually make this kind of two-sided commitment easier to state and manage.''

[[category:proposal]] [[category:license]] [[category:web]] [[category:wiki]]

Green license

2008-02-08T07:13:07Z

Craig Hubley: category:proposal category:license category:green

''The following was originally contributed to the predecessor of [[this wiki]] by [[anonymous trolls]] in 2004, except for sections in italics.
Related pages are [[peace license]] and [[science license]], and a more current related proposal is a [[human rights license]]. Since 2004 many
[[eco-label]] standards have been promulgated to mark [[low ecological footprint]], [[carbon-neutral]], [[no old growth]] and other kinds of
'''green''' labels. Licensing works only to those who satisfy such [[audit criteria]] has accordingly become very much easier and more likely.''

A '''green license''' forbidding ecologically destructive use (including perhaps military and some police uses as per [[peace license]]) is a potential candidate for a [[future]] [[Creative Commons Public License]]. ''What follows is [[speculative content]]:''

While it would seem difficult to enforce it may not be: there are many efforts out there trying to uncover unsustainable or outright anti-ecological activities all over the world and it would not be long before anyone making use of something would be discovered. A [[civil copyright suit]] would be perhaps a minor discouragement but it would help to document the facts and help organize [[boycott]] and other activities to stop the damage. In some cases the [[right of discovery]] under a copyright suit might exceed that under an environmental complaint and be of great use to filing future complaints.

A company that violates copyrights might also be easier to portray as uncaring or abusive of "the little guy" and this may achieve attention to its more important abuses. It would be just one arrow in a quiver but perhaps an increasingly important one. Remember, Al Capone was only ever convicted for income tax evasion!

Also, there are quite organized groups such as the [[Global Greens]] who represent the hundreds of Green Parties, and already extant efforts to apply the [[Creative Commons Public License]] regime such as the [[Green Party of Canada Living Platform Terms of Use]]. Accordingly it would probably be very easy to assemble the expertise to debate the way such a license could be defined and also enforced. If you satisfy such picky people with such legalistic minds as Green Parties, you can probably satisfy any less legally or politically involved environmental group...?

[[category:proposal]] [[category:license]] [[category:green]]

Human rights license

2008-02-08T07:09:28Z

Craig Hubley: category:proposal category:human rights category:politics category:license

Two good examples of a '''human rights license''' that forbids use by human rights violating parties:
*[http://www.xerobank.com/tesla.html Torrify Ethical Software License Agreement] ([[TESLA]] visible [http://xerobank.com/tesla.html here])
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivismo_Enhanced-Source_Software_License_Agreement Hacktivismo Enhanced Source Software License Agreement] ([[HESSLA]] visible [http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php here])

These are [[share-alike]] licenses that forbid use by one specific class of persons and institutions, those being human rights violators. [[Hacktivismo]] and [[Xerobank]] refer to these licenses as part of the [[free software]] movement and argue, similarly to [[Richard Stallman]], that they support a broader definition of freedom than mere access to source code. [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html Stallman and GNU generally reject this claim], but certainly it's justifiable if freedom is understood as guaranteed by human rights law, treaty and convention. Some licenses already contained clauses to deny use to rights-violating parties, such as the [[original BSD license]].

The modern licenses are extremely clear but are generally considered hard to enforce, as would be a [[peace license]] or [[green license]]. However, such a license remains a potential candidate for a [[future]] [[Creative Commons Public License]]. ''This category of human rights violators overlaps commercial and non-commercial use and accordingly cannot be defined within the existing license scopes.''

The Hacktivismo/Xerobank type of license states that private use is unlimited, except that unlike GPL, it may not be modified to include trojans, security compromising programs, spyware, or other malwares. It also prohibits modification of xB Browser for use with commercial proxy services other than XeroBank, which may be to prevent any such commercial service from being used at all, since commercial services are easy to subvert or bribe.

== rights and freedoms protected in a human rights license ==

Taken from the premable to the TESLA:

"The Freedoms We Promote: When we speak of the freedom of end-users, we are talking about basic freedoms recognized in the Hactivismo Declaration,[fn2] the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,[fn3] the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[fn4] and other documents that recognize and promote freedom and human dignity. Principal among these freedoms are:
[fn2] [http://Hacktivismo.com/about/declarations/]
[fn3] [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm]
[fn4] [http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html]

=== freedom of expression ===

Freedom of Expression: The freedom of opinion and expression "include[s] freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,"[fn5] and the freedom to choose one's own medium of expression. The arbitrary use of technological censorship measures to block or prevent access to broad categories of speech and expression including the work of critics, intellectuals, artists, journalists, and religious figures is seldom, if ever, justified by any legitimate governmental objective. And, to the extent that technology enables censorship decisions to be removed from public scrutiny and review, technology-based censorship mechanisms are especially suspect and dangerous to civil society. When repressive governments and other institutions of power seek to deprive people of this basic freedom, people have the right to secure, employ and deploy the tools necessary to reclaim the freedoms to which they are justifiably entitled.

[fn5] Article 19, [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]].

== freedom of collective action and association ==

Freedom of Collective Action and Association: People have and should have the "freedom of peaceful assembly and association."[fn6] This freedom includes the right of people to work together to secure constructive change in their personal, economic, and political circumstances. When repressive governments or other institutions of power seek to deprive people (including users of the Internet) of their freedoms of voluntary assembly, association, and common enterprise, people have the right to secure, employ and deploy technologies that reclaim the freedoms to which they are justifiably entitled.

[fn6] Article 20(1), Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

== freedoms of thought, conscience, sexuality and religion ==

Freedoms of Thought, Conscience, Sexuality, and Religion: People have and should have the freedom of "thought, conscience, and religion."[fn7] This right "includes freedom to change religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others, in public or private, to manifest any religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance, regardless of doctrine."[fn8] Every person, regardless of sex or sexual preference, and with reciprocal respect for the corresponding rights of all others, has and should have the right to determine and choose, freely and without coercion, whether, how and with whom he or she shall fully enjoy the most private and personal aspects of human life, including individual sexuality, reproduction, and fertility. Moreover, "[t]he explicit recognition and reaffirmation of the right of all women to control all aspects of their health, in particular their own fertility, is basic to their empowerment."[fn9] When repressive governments and other institutions of power seek to deprive people of these basic freedoms, they have the right to secure, employ and deploy the tools necessary to reclaim the freedoms to which they are justifiably entitled.
[fn7] Article 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
[fn8] Id.
[fn9] Paragraph 17, Beijing Declaration of the Fourth United Nations Conference on Women (Sept. 15, 1995).

== privacy ==

Freedom of Privacy: Every person has the right to be free from "subject[ion] to arbitrary interference with his [or her] privacy, family, home or correspondence"[fn10] -- digitally, or by any other means or methodology. This freedom of privacy includes the right to be free from governmental or private surveillance that might interfere with or deter the rightful exercise of any other freedoms of any person. In the context of software tools that enable people to reclaim their freedoms, all end-users have and should have the right to secure and use tools that are free from the surreptitious insertion into their software of "backdoors," "spy-ware," escrow mechanisms, or other code or techniques that might promote surveillance, or subvert security (including cryptographic security), confidentiality, anonymity, authenticity and/or trust.

[fn10] Article 12, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

== enhance governtment accountability ===

Enhance Government Accountability: To this end, we have sought and intend to ensure, to the fullest extent that law (including, without limitation, the law of contract and of copyright licensing) enables us to do so,[fn16] that no government or other institution may do anything with this computer software or the underlying source code without becoming a Licensee bound by the terms of this License Agreement, subject to the same restrictions on modification and use as anyone else.
[fn16] "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating . . . fundamental rights . . ." Article 8, United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

[[category:proposal]] [[category:human rights]] [[category:politics]] [[category:license]]

Peace license

2008-02-08T06:53:21Z

Craig Hubley: also from 2004 - category:proposal category:science category:license

''The following was originally contributed by [[anonymous trolls]] to the predecessor of [[this wiki]] in 2004, except for text in italics. A more current proposal is a [[human rights license]].''

A '''peace license''' forbidding military and some police uses is a potential candidate for a [[future]] [[Creative Commons Public License]]. ''This category overlaps commercial and non-commercial use and accordingly cannot be defined within the existing license scopes.''

Some licenses already contain such clauses, like the [[WarFTP license]] or the [[original BSD license]]. ''The [[TESLA]] is an example of a [[human rights license]] with peace promotion as one of its primary goals, as it forbids use by governments that violate human rights, a category which corresponds with aggressive nations.''

It being increasingly common to challenge war as a global policy option, some people will arguably prefer to exclude not just commercial users (with [[CC-by-nc-sa]]) but also those noncommercial military or police uses that they consider oppressive or to be escalating rather than resolving violence.

Obviously, the terms here would be tricky. This might have to be a [[parametric license]] specifying more exactly what the restrictions were, with some very restrictive defaults, e.g. to permit only nonviolent private use, and medical and social services use in private or public sector without any use in any [[law enforcement]] activities of any kind.

A [[green license]] would probably have to be a variant of this license or allow easy combination with it.

[[category:proposal]] [[category:science]] [[category:license]]

Science license

2008-02-08T06:48:00Z

Craig Hubley: restoring some anonymously contributed content from 2004 with framing in current Science Commons context, where such a uniform science license was considered and ruled out for now as too difficult

"In 2006, after a year long period of research, [[Science Commons]] targeted three areas for focused work: scholarly publishing, licensing policies, and the realization of the “semantic web” for science. This segmentation comes from analyzing the overall research cycle of science, which includes the:
survey of the existing canon of knowledge
*development of hypotheses for testing
*acquisition of research tools
*experimentation
*analysis of data
*recontribution to the canon of knowledge through peer review publication" - [http://sciencecommons.org/projects/]

"Science Commons has launched three corresponding “proof of concept” *projects with early-stage efforts in:
*Scholar’s copyrights,
*Biological materials transfer, and
*The intersection of [[semantic web]] with [[Open Access]] content in neuroscience (the [[Neurocommons]])." - [http://sciencecommons.org/projects/]

"...the forest of terms and conditions around data make integration difficult to legally perform in many cases. One approach might be to develop and recommend a single license: any data with this license can be integrated with any other data under this license." - [http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/]

Accordingly such a uniform '''science license''' is a potential candidate for a [[future]] [[Creative Commons]] license. ''It is not presently being
pursued, as "there are too many databases under too many terms already, and it is unlikely that any one license or suite of licenses will have the correct mix of terms to gain critical mass and allow massive-scale machine integration of data."
Accordingly what follows is a [[proposal]], nothing more.''

== scope of a uniform science license ==

This would be a variant of the existing [[non-commercial]] [[share-alike]] licenses that would more closely specify the way that the work can be extended.

''The following was originally contributed to the predecessor of [[this wiki]] in 2004 by [[anonymous trolls]].''

All who have followed the [[scientific method]] and provided documentation of that would be able to make [[derivative work]]s under [[Share Alike]] terms. Others could [[cite]] (not just [[quote]]) and [[distribute]] the work [[as is]] but would be subject to a [[NoDerivs]] restriction, as their derivative works would not advance science, and any such derivatives would have the potential to distort the original.

The only additions that would be allowed would be standard scientific transactions such as:
*adding a comment, question, or [[issue]] in [[peer review]] in the context of an anticipated journal or conference publication
*linking [[experimental apparatus]] details or questions or descriptions - so that the apparatus used in [[reproducing an experiment]] could be compared
*linking other work that should be [[cite]]d whether to add evidence for the [[hypothesis]] or provide points to challenge
*answering to such points raised in cited works or reproduced experiments or peer review, which need not always be done by the original author(s) but could be done by other peers, etc.

Questionable scientific practices would however be forbidden:
*narrowing or (especially) broadening the hypothesis after the results have been analyzed - rather than doing new experiments - to make it appear that the results validated a pre-existing hypothesis rather than prompting a new one
*removing citations to credible works with conflicting results
*removing peer review comments that question the method or practices or evidence
*removing evidence of prior publication attempts and review
*removing evidence that casts a bad light on a sponsor or a commercial product of a sponsor, e.g. as in pharmaceuticals
*adding authors who did not perform the actual lab work or propose the hypotheses
*removing authors who did perform the actual lab work or propose the hypotheses

[[category:proposal]] [[category:science]] [[category:license]]