Freedom Defined at the National Free Culture Conference
========================================================

| (C) Copyright 2007 -- `Benjamin Mako Hill`__
| Distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
|
| Presentation on May 26, 2007 at the `National Free Culture Conference`__ 

__ http://mako.cc
__ http://freeculture.org/blog/2007/04/23/natl-conf-may-26-cambridge-ma/

.. Note::

   These are talk *notes*. They are not a prepared paper or even a
   prepared talk. Please take care before quoting them and contact me to
   clarify any thing that is unclear.


Introduction
-------------

Folks are talking about tactical things that we can learn from the free
software community. It's true, of course, that free culture (the name,
the ideas, the licenses, etc) are explicitly based on the free software
movement.

I'm going to talk about some of the ways that they are differnet and
what we might be able to do about this.

What is Free Culture
-----------------------

What is free culture?

The free culture book says:

  A free culture is not a culture without property; it is not a culture
  in which artists don't get paid. A culture without property, or in
  which creators can't get paid is anarchy, not freedom. Anarchy is not
  what I advance here.

  Instead, the free culture that I defend in this book is *a balance
  between anarchy and control*. (emphasis mine)

Now I don't mean to pick on Lessig here. He's been instrumental in
advancing the context in anyone will take a group like us having this
conversation seriously.  He's the reason I'm here.

*So what is free culture?*

Larry says: "the freedom to choose how a work is licensed."

Stop and think about that.

Now remember free software.  Freedom's 0-3: use, modify, copy,
collaborate.

Creative Commons says: "some rights reserved"

Free Software says: "essential rights are unreservable"

Now, free culture is explicitly defined as based on free software so
this seems starnge. We can understand this though by looking at the
language of groups like CC who cite inspiration in 
In some of the GPLv3 debate there's been a phrase spread around, by
people here and by others and probably even by myself that says, "the
GPL is the constitution of the free software movement."

Now, a constitution is not just a law. It is a law to which other laws
at held. It sets the limits of what is and is not legal. A constitution
lays out the principles.

The GPL does not do that. The FSD does.

What's The Difference

The results of not adopting a vision are that:

* "Free Culture" often refers to licenses whose freedom is
  controversial (e.g., OPL, Developing Nations, Sampling):

  - What happens if a developing nation becomes a developed nation?
  - Is Sampling more prohibitive than fair use (no advertising)?

* Nobody was challenged to release their work freely

  - In CC, all licenses are presented equally (discussion to change
    this with color coding);
  - The vast majority of CC works are under the most restrictive CC
    licenses;
  - There seems to be no movement from more restrictive licenses to
    less restrictive licenses;

In short: legal and ethical incompatibilities and inconsistencies, no
strong united push for maximizing freedom.

Definition
-------------

So a small group of Wikipedian and hackers and artists and musicians
(and a lawyer) decided put out something and have a discussion and
argument about it. Our definition might not win but it's a good place to
start.

The conclusion, the `Definition of Free Cultural Works`__, that we've
come to argues that these are essential:

__ http://freedomdefined.org

* Distribution, including commercial use;
* Study, use, modification;
* Distribution of derivatives;
* Allows protection of freedoms and attribution:
  - Copyleft;
  - Ensure "transparent copies" (e.g., no DRM);

Very much like the FSD.

Free cultural works must also:

* Be available in the "preferred form to make modifications to it"
* Have no other technical or legal restrictions that reduce freedom by:

  - Not violating other people's rights (when in doubt, free until
    proved otherwise);

  - Be made available in a format that can be edited and used with
    free software;

Therefore the FCED encompasses existing definitions like Open Source/Free
Software Definition.

The keys issues that we're *not* talking about in the definition
involve:

* Commercial use
* Non-Derivative Works

Our work so far:

* Release 1.0 of the license;
* Translations into a dozen languages (and probably requiring a 1.1);

Things in progress (and ways you can help):

* Free Culture Foundation in the UK;
* Process of adoption by Wikimedia Foundation;
* Building a blog of free cultural works;
* Buttons;
* New free students movements (universities and such);

Things we need:

* Educational resources: Which licenses do have which effects?;
* Processes, tools, metadata, indexes, etc. (Let's avoid duplicate effort);
* Initiatives, awareness campaigns;

If there's time: Who gets to define freedom?