Free Culture Poster by doctormo

This is a Free Culture poster which attempts to explain some of the points surrounding the commons, creative commons and free and open source software.

It's in draft and I need you help to read through it and pick out problems!

Alpha 5

BLUG-Fred Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2012

Hi! Nice work. I think there is a typo in the FOSS section: "inderviduals" is probably meant to be individuals, right?

Also I believe on a poster titled 'Free culture' one should only list free culture licenses: NC and ND are not free culture licenses. You may as well want to add other licenses which qualify such as the one listed here: [link]

Thanks

doctormo Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2012 Professional Digital Artist

I agree NC and ND are not good for most uses and they annoy me when I see people use them, but to not mention them would be remiss. Perhaps there is a way to mention it without promoting it.

this one is a draft you should check out the later versions [link]

BLUG-Fred Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2012

I did notice the blue ones but I guess I was really seduced by the yellow tones and dynamism of this one.

One way I think of NC/ND is as an introduction for artists to 'test the waters' of Free Culture. So while those are not Free Culture licenses they help artists to share their work with a feeling of control over the derivative work. Not sure how you're gonna put that in the poster but those 2 can be considered important middle ground when you're coming from the "other side".

doctormo Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2012 Professional Digital Artist

We actually had a good discussion about these issues with creative types. It turns out that ND while frighting for me as a programmer and designer, is useful for fictional works in certain circumstances where integrity needs to be maintained for a certain amount of time. Esp. in books/short stories. The NC is used all the time as a crutch of course, people who don't need to ever make money from their creative works just don't like the idea of other people earning money from their works.

And that's an ego change that needs to happen, I have to be happy that someone else found it possible to make money; esp' if my work is already widely available for free.

BLUG-Fred Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2012

I can understand ND for logos and things which make sense as you're mentioning. But then again it remains outside of the Free Culture scope: it's just for something else.

I also agree with your second comment. Also an often comment to NC is that the artist want to get a message if someone intend to use their work commercially and believe that an email to them shouldn't be a problem. I don't think it's the best way to have people use their art but I can definitely understand the middle ground they are looking for.

doctormo Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2012 Professional Digital Artist

Artists aren't yet technically minded, part of the Attribution clause allows you to specify how you are to be attributed. If that means that your work _must_ have a clickable link to your website then you can quite easily track where your work is legally being used. Everyone else is using the work without a license. :-D

Oh for sure ND and NC aren't free culture.

Dwolfman Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2010 Professional Digital Artist

I think the layout is great, when you add the inkscape artwork, etc, I would suggest focusing on using stock images with themes like people smiling, maybe a child, sunset over water for the commons picture, and the free and open source image should be one that shows trust, or implies trust...but the first image should invoke a feeling which the other images resolve..just some ideas, man....it's a great start though, love the site also.

doctormo Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2010 Professional Digital Artist

The artist is working on similar thoughts, drawings of people who are reading to others, sharing etc.

Kickaha Featured By Owner Jun 16, 2010

Hey doctormo.

I just discovered this poster through Planet Ubuntu.

I don't agree with the "Free and Open Source" chapter. You are exclusively describing the Open Source Software philosophy which is mainly focused on the efficiency of the development model. So maybe you could try to change the title with "Open Source Software" or you have to write something about the Free Software philosophy. I've got something to help you. “Moreover, free software gives independence, from governments, from companies, from political groups, etc. And better, an economical independence: it isn’t plagued by compulsory profit. In fact, Free software is already the heritage of mankind, in the common sense” this quotation comes from [link]

Keep the good work.

Jean-Christophe from france (So please excuse me for my english if you find it bad, but please praise me if you think this is not so bad

Kickaha Featured By Owner Jun 16, 2010

Hmmmm, well maybe I'm wrong in my prévious post.

But I've got some other thoughts about the last sentence, in the FOSS section.

I would replace the last sentence by "In order to protect this community most FOSS licenses require you to SHARE your modifications under the same licenses so anyone can FREELY improve upon"

You see what I mean ? The idea is that those FOSS licenses don't ask to share the modifications for the improvement of the community (which is whole humanity) but to remain FREE to use,study,improve end share.

doctormo Featured By Owner Jun 16, 2010 Professional Digital Artist

I try to keep all the FOSS elements in there, thanks for letting me know that you think it needs more freedom, although I have very limited space to talk about it and it's sort of implied by the commons text which is about freedom.

Context is everything as they say.

Although the FOSS section does use the FSF 4 freedoms (slightly edited for logical reasons)

Kickaha Featured By Owner Jun 16, 2010

Oh. I wrote my last post without refreshing the page. I just see your modifications in the last sentence. I like it better. The previous seemed like an order.