Civil Rights
Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.
q2K BHP
Black History Portal
THE BHP WIRE —
HIDDEN TRUTHS
What's New!
Explore the people, places, events, achievements, struggles and stories that shaped our journey.
Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.
Innovation, patents, science, technology and world-changing contributions.
Pioneers, champions, Negro Leagues, records, activism and excellence.
Meet the people whose lives, choices and achievements shaped the journey.
Black towns, communities, institutions and places where history happened.
Moments that changed communities, movements, institutions and the nation.
Mansa Musa was the ruler of the Mali Empire in West Africa. Details recorded here should be sourced; unknown information is left blank.
MORE →Reflects the personal views, recollections, and perspective of the author, Mike Davis.
This is a personal recollection on the Move fire on May 13, 1985
The free-culture movement is a social movement that promotes the freedom to distribute and modify the creative works of others in the form of free content,[1][2] otherwise known as open content.[3][4][5] They encourage creators to create such content by using permissive and share-alike licensing, like that used on Wikipedia. Additionally, some free-culture advocates support piracy due to viewing copyright as illegitimate.[6]
The movement objects to what it considers over-restrictive copyright laws. Many members of the movement argue that over-restrictive laws hinder creativity[7] and create a "permission culture", which they worry will shrink the public domain[8] and fair use.[citation needed] They engage in political activism, mostly advocating for specific limits on copyright.[8]
The free-culture movement, with its ethos of free exchange of ideas, is aligned with the free and open-source-software movement, as well as other movements and philosophies such as open access (OA), the remix culture, the hacker culture, the access to knowledge movement, the copyleft movement and the public domain movement.
In the late 1960s, Stewart Brand founded the Whole Earth Catalog and argued that technology could be liberating rather than oppressing.[9] He coined the slogan "Information wants to be free" in 1984[10] to advocate against limiting access to information by governmental control, preventing a public domain of information.[11]
In 1998, the United States Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which President Clinton signed into law. The legislation extended copyright protections for twenty additional years, resulting in a total guaranteed copyright term of seventy years after a creator's death. The bill was heavily lobbied by music and film corporations like Disney, and dubbed as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Lawrence Lessig claims copyright is an obstacle to cultural production, knowledge sharing and technological innovation, and that private interests – as opposed to public good – determine law.[12] He travelled the country in 1998, giving as many as a hundred speeches a year at college campuses, and sparked the movement. It led to the foundation of the first chapter of the Students for Free Culture at Swarthmore College.
In 1999, Lessig challenged the Bono Act, taking the case to the US Supreme Court. Despite his firm belief in victory, citing the Constitution's plain language about "limited" copyright terms, Lessig only gained two dissenting votes: from Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens.
In 2001, Lessig initiated Creative Commons, an alternative "some rights reserved" licensing system to the default "all rights reserved" copyright system. Lessig focuses on a fair balance between the interest of the public to use and participate into released creative works and the need of protection for a creator's work, which still enables a "read-write" remix culture.[7]
The term "free culture" was originally used since 2003 during the World Summit on Information Society[13] to present the first free license for artistic creation at large, initiated by the Copyleft attitude team in France since 2001 (named free art license). It was then developed in Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture in 2004.[14]
In August 2003 the Open Content Project, a 1998 Creative Commons precursor by David A. Wiley, announced the Creative Commons as successor project and Wiley joined as director.[15][16]
In 2005/2006 within the free-culture movement, Creative Commons was criticized by Erik Möller[17] and Benjamin Mako Hill for lacking minimum standards for freedom.[18] Following this, the "Definition of Free Cultural Works" was created as collaborative work of many, including Erik Möller, Lawrence Lessig, Benjamin Mako Hill and Richard Stallman.[19] In February 2008, several Creative Commons licenses were "approved for free cultural works", namely the CC BY and CC BY-SA (later also the CC0).[20] Creative Commons licenses with restrictions on commercial use or derivative works were not approved.
In October 2014, the Open Knowledge Foundation described their definition of "open", for open content and open knowledge, as synonymous to the definition of "free" in the "Definition of Free Cultural Works", noting that both are rooted in the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition.[21] Therefore, the same three creative commons licenses are recommended for open content and free content, CC BY, CC BY-SA, and CC0.[22][23][24] The Open Knowledge foundation additionally defined three specialized licenses for data and databases, previously unavailable: the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL), the Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-BY) and the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL).
The organization commonly associated with free culture is Creative Commons (CC), founded by Lawrence Lessig. CC promotes sharing creative works and diffusing ideas to produce cultural vibrance, scientific progress and business innovation.
QuestionCopyright.org is another organization whose stated mission is "to highlight the economic, artistic, and social harm caused by distribution monopolies, and to demonstrate how freedom-based distribution is better for artists and audiences."[25]
QuestionCopyright may be best known for its association with artist Nina Paley, whose multi-award-winning feature length animation Sita Sings The Blues has been held up as a successful[26] example of free distribution under the aegis of the "Sita Distribution Project".[27] The web site of the organization has a number of resources, publications, and other references related to various copyright, patent, and trademark issues.
The student organization Students for Free Culture is sometimes confusingly called "the Free Culture Movement", but that is not its official name. The organization is a subset of the greater movement. The first chapter was founded in 1998 at Swarthmore College, and by 2008, the organization had 26 chapters.[28]
The free-culture movement takes the ideals of the free and open-source software movement and extends them from the field of software to all cultural and creative works. Free Software and Free Culture movements are both about freedom; sharing, modifying, and distributing creative stuff. Both movements push back against restrictive copyright laws, but they have different focuses. The Free Software movement is about ethics in software and making sure users are free to do what they want with their tech. Meanwhile, the Free Culture movement is more about freedom for cultural works, whether that’s art, music, or anything else that helps society share knowledge and creativity.[18]
Early in Creative Commons' life, Richard Stallman (the founder of the Free Software Foundation and the free software movement) supported the organization. He withdrew his support due to the introduction of several licenses including the developing nations (retired in 2007)[29] and sampling licenses.[30] Stallman later restored some support when Creative Commons retired those licenses.
The free music movement, a subset of the free-culture movement, started out just as the Web rose in popularity with the Free Music Philosophy[31] by Ram Samudrala in early 1994. It was also based on the idea of free software by Richard Stallman and coincided with nascent open art and open information movements (referred to here as collectively as the "free-culture movement"). The Free Music Philosophy used a three-pronged approach to voluntarily encourage the spread of unrestricted copying, based on the fact that copies of recordings and compositions could be made and distributed with complete accuracy and ease via the Internet. The subsequent free music movement was reported on by diverse media outlets including Billboard,[32] Forbes,[33] Levi's Original Music Magazine,[34] The Free Radical,[35] Wired[36][37] and The New York Times.[38] Along with the explosion of the Web driven by open source software and Linux, the rise of P2P and lossy compression, and despite the efforts of the music industry, free music became largely a reality in the early 21st century.[39] Organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Creative Commons with free information champions like Lawrence Lessig were devising numerous licenses that offered different flavors of copyright and copyleft. The question was no longer why and how music should be free, but rather how creativity would flourish while musicians developed models to generate revenue in the Internet era.[40][41][42]
Initially, Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman did not see the importance of free works beyond software.[43] For instance for manuals and books Stallman stated in the 1990s:
As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.
Similarly, in 1999 Stallman said that he sees "no social imperative for free hardware designs like the imperative for free software".[44] Other authors, such as Joshua Pearce, have argued that there is an ethical imperative for open-source hardware, specifically with respect to open-source-appropriate technology for sustainable development.[45]
Later, Stallman changed his position slightly and advocated for free sharing of information in 2009.[46] But, in 2011 Stallman commented on the Megaupload founder's arrest, "I think all works meant for practical uses must be free, but that does not apply to music, since music is meant for appreciation, not for practical use."[47] In a follow-up Stallman differentiated three classes: works of practical use should be free, works representing points of view should be shareable but not changeable and works of art or entertainment should be copyrighted (but only for 10 years).[48] In an essay in 2012 Stallman argued that video games as software should be free but not their artwork.[49] In 2015 Stallman advocated for free hardware designs.[50]
Vocal criticism against the free-culture movement comes from copyright proponents.
Prominent technologist and musician Jaron Lanier discusses this perspective of free culture in his 2010 book You Are Not a Gadget. Lanier's concerns include the depersonalization of crowd-sourced anonymous media (such as Wikipedia) and the economic dignity of middle-class creative artists.
Andrew Keen, a critic of Web 2.0, criticizes some of the free culture ideas in his book, Cult of the Amateur, describing Lessig as an "intellectual property communist".[51]
The decline of the news media industry's market share is blamed on free culture but scholars like Clay Shirky claim that the market itself, not free culture, is what is killing the journalism industry.[14]
The free art movement is distinct from the free culture movement as the artist retains full copyright for the work. The free art movement is the practice of artists leaving art in public places for the public to remove and keep. The artwork is usually tagged with a notice stating it is free art, and either with the artist's name or left anonymously. The movement was reinvigorated by British street art practitioner My Dog Sighs coining the term "Free Art Fridays".[52] Clues to the location of artworks are sometimes left on social media to combine treasure hunting with art.[53]
I'm closing OpenContent because I think Creative Commons is doing a better job of providing licensing options which will stand up in court.
Is Software special? [...] So restricting modification is not necessarily evil when it comes to "articles and books"? Or does he just mean that we aren't obliged to let others misrepresent us? Alas, no mention of restricting verbatim duplication. Even Stallman's story on "The Right to Read" does not address the issue directly, despite being about IPR issues other than software. It extrapolates a dystopian future from our current position and acts as a warning about current trends, but offers no comment on the status quo. [...] There is a striking lack of discussion from the usual leaders with regards to the application of copyright in areas other than software. Raymond is mute, and Stallman mumbles. They both seem to view software as a special case: Raymond tacitly, and Stallman explicitly.
| Journals | |
|---|---|
| Papers | |
| Grey literature | |
| Other publication types | |
| Impact and ranking |
|
| Reform and access | |
| Versioning | |
| Indexes and search engines | |
| Related topics | |
| Lists | |
Source: Wikipedia. Article content is retrieved live through the MediaWiki API.
The open-source software movement is a social movement that supports the use of open-source licenses for some or all software, as part of the broader notion of open collaboration. The movement emerged to promote the development and adoption of open-source software. Programmers participating in the open-source movement contribute to software development through voluntary collaboration and code sharing. Open-source licenses typically require that source code be made available without restrictions on modification or redistribution, and prohibit discrimination against individuals or groups. Under this development model, anyone can obtain, modify, and redistribute open-source code. Modifications are typically shared with the broader community, creating a collaborative development process where contributions are tracked and attributed. This collaborative approach differs from proprietary software development models in its emphasis on transparency and community participation.
Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software available under a license that gives users the right to use, share, modify, and distribute the software — modified or not — to everyone and provides the means to exercise those rights using the software's source code. FOSS is an inclusive umbrella term encompassing free software and open-source software. The rights guaranteed by FOSS originate from the "Four Essential Freedoms" of The Free Software Definition and the criteria of The Open Source Definition. All FOSS has publicly available source code, but not all source-available software is FOSS. FOSS is the opposite of proprietary software, which is licensed restrictively or has undisclosed source code. The historical precursor to FOSS was the hobbyist and academic public domain software ecosystem of the 1960s to 1980s. Free and open-source operating systems such as Linux distributions and descendants of BSD are widely used, powering millions of servers, desktops, smartphones, and other devices. Free-software licenses and open-source licenses have been adopted by many software packages. Reasons for using FOSS include decreased software costs, increased security against malware, stability, privacy, opportunities for educational usage, and giving users more control over their own hardware. The free software movement and the open-source software movement are online social movements behind widespread production, adoption and promotion of FOSS, with the former preferring to use the equivalent term free/libre and open-source software. FOSS is supported by a loosely associated movement of multiple organizations, foundations, communities and individuals who share basic philosophical perspectives and collaborate practically, but may diverge in detail questions.
The free-culture movement is a social movement that promotes the freedom to distribute and modify the creative works of others in the form of free content, otherwise known as open content. They encourage creators to create such content by using permissive and share-alike licensing, like that used on Wikipedia. Additionally, some free-culture advocates support piracy due to viewing copyright as illegitimate. The movement objects to what it considers over-restrictive copyright laws. Many members of the movement argue that over-restrictive laws hinder creativity and create a "permission culture", which they worry will shrink the public domain and fair use. They engage in political activism, mostly advocating for specific limits on copyright. The free-culture movement, with its ethos of free exchange of ideas, is aligned with the free and open-source-software movement, as well as other movements and philosophies such as open access (OA), the remix culture, the hacker culture, the access to knowledge movement, the copyleft movement and the public domain movement.
Open-source software (OSS) is computer software whose source code is publicly available, allowing users to use, study, modify, and distribute it — in contrast with proprietary (closed-source) software. These abilities are typically granted through open licenses or, more rarely, by dedication to the public domain. The development of open-source software can be based on open collaboration, a decentralized model of production. It is commonly defined according to the Open Source Definition of the Open Source Initiative, but the precise meaning of "open source" remains contentious. Open-source software offers a range of benefits, but also presents specific risks and challenges. It can provide improved accessibility through lower and shared costs, greater adaptability through customization, transparency with auditable code, better interoperability via open standards, and independence from vendor lock-in, among others. Due to its ubiquity in modern software, open-source software raises major cybersecurity concerns, as well as significant maintenance challenges. Open-source software has become the backbone of the global digital infrastructure, powering domains such as web servers, cloud computing, supercomputers, mobile devices, artificial intelligence, and Internet of Things. A 2022 estimate suggests that between 80 and 96 percent of the code making up software on the market today, including proprietary software, is of open-source origin. Its adoption has grown steadily across public institutions, the private sector, and academia, driven by motivations of cybersecurity, digital sovereignty, and independence from proprietary software, with significant geopolitical implications. Organizations are increasingly setting up Open Source Program Offices to manage their strategies. Open-source software has its roots in the culture of source code sharing that dates back to the origins of computing in the 1950s. The term was formalized in 1998 with the founding of the Open Source Initiative, succeeding the free software movement initiated in the 1980s, with the intention of overcoming the ambiguity of the word "free" — meaning both freedom and gratis — to better appeal to the business world. Major examples include the Linux kernel, the Firefox web browser or Bitcoin. MediaWiki, the software powering Wikipedia, is itself an example of open-source software.
Before the 1921 destruction of Tulsa’s Greenwood District, Black residents had created a remarkable center of business and community life. The district included stores, professional offices, entertainment venues and homes owned by Black citizens. Understanding Greenwood means learning what was built—not only what was burned.
MORE →Madam C.J. Walker
