[okfn-discuss] Draft of 'Libre' Wikipedia page

Fri Mar 9 19:45:46 UTC 2012

On 09/03/12 15:38, Chris Sakkas wrote:
> 
> Tim, I think you’re right that it’s not productive to talk about IP
> without saying its name. I’ll use IP when I need to refer to the
> category as a whole, but avoid it if it’s at all possible to refer to
> copyright, trademark, patent or design law in the specific. After all,
> we also do our readers a disservice by using general terms where
> specific ones will do.

"IP" is a propaganda term that confuses people (I say that from
experience of such confusion). And I agree about using specific terms.

But "IP Law" is a category on Wikipedia, so I think it should be made
clear how Libre relates to it. Preferably in as few words as possible. :-)

> David, I’m not sure that it’s so clear cut. Presumably a libre licence
> will deal with copyright only 

Not at all IMO. The CC licences handle moral rights and DRM, and future
versions may handle database rights as well.

They don't handle model releases, trademarks, or personality rights, but
most of those are hard to handle with a public licence iirc.

> (although couldn’t one that deals with
> /sui generis /database rights also be considered libre?),

The ODbL is certainly Libre for data, I'd say.

> but a libre
> work has a number of requirements beyond simply being under a libre
> licence and I think if it were encumbered by – say – a patent that would
> make the resource non-libre.

The GPL and Apache licences cover patents, and the ODbL and (possibly)
upcoming CC licenses cover database rights. It is currently harder for
cultural works to be affected by patents, although not impossible.

You are absolutely right that cultural freedom is a (much) larger issue
than licences, but the further we go from licencing debates the more
useful concepts like freedom of speech or expression rather than libre
become, I think.

- Rob.