Charter for Innovation Creativity and Access to Knowledge

The Free Culture Forum was first organised as an international encounter on free culture and free knowledge that took place in Barcelona from October 30th to November 1st 2009. During the Forum more than a hundred organisations and individuals from all continents active in free culture worked together to produce a common declaration, or charter. The Forum ended up with a first version of the "Charter for Innovation, Creativity and Access to Knowledge". The present document is the interpretation of the Charter from the perspective of Free Knowledge. Note that this is work in progress.

Preface about Free Knowledge

Free Knowledge is explicit knowledge made available with the freedom to use, study, adapt, copy and distribute modified versions. From the Free Knowledge perspective, our focus is on freedom (not "for free") for several reasons.

First, consider that free knowledge in all its forms is usually produced by communities in an open process and with open publication of inputs and outputs. This is what is also described as commons-based peer production or p2p production of free knowledge. While the freedoms that define free knowledge lead to the production in such open processes and open publication, the other way around is not necessarily the case. In short, freedom is the defining criterion for free, libre and open knowledge, and serves in our view better to convey understanding (see: Founding Principles).

Second, the various free, libre and open movements have been greatly inspired by the Free Software movement, which was the first global movement to raise the issues of user freedoms related to software and knowledge.

Third, the struggle for freedom at the highest level is what has marked the progress of mankind throughout history, where development means the expansion of the freedoms of man, both as an objective and as a means (Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, 1999).

Some people use the term "libre", which refers to liberty, and therefore to freedom. As in English the word "free" refers both to freedom and "for free", libre might be less confusing. It is used in Spanish and has the same Latin root as for example "livre" in French and Portuguese, and "libero" in Italian. Free Knowledge has thus the same meaning as Libre Knowledge, Free Software as Libre Software, free licenses as libre licenses and so on (see Say Libre).

This said, to avoid splitting the positive energy of millions of people over the term each chooses to use, we consider it a useful habit to introduce the terms in the start of any relevant document and refer to the other two terms at least once (and if so desired make references to relevant websites that explain the concepts in more detail). Even though the political connotations of the terms differ greatly, these movements are also very output oriented, and we can therefore be pragmatical to introduce for example free software as "Free Software (a.k.a. Open Source or Libre Software)" so readers familiar with one of the terms understand we are talking about just that. Whenever you consider it useful, explaining in more detail the background of each of the terms, movements and history behind it is a very good way of raising more awareness.

Free Culture Forum Charter for Innovation, Creativity and Access to Knowledge Citizens' and artists' rights in the digital age

Immediate and urgent solutions

The official version 1.0 is available here: http://fcforum.net/charter_extended

This is the Extended version 1.0 – Free Knowledge Interpretation. To learn more about Free Knowledge: http://freeknowledge.eu

This article is based on the Libre Knowledge version which is available here: http://wikieducator.org/BC4i8n-a2kLibre

We invite all citizens to make this Charter theirs, spread it and practice it.
We invite all the governments, multinationals and institutions urgently to read it, understand it, embrace the principles, adopt and implement it.
This document is a plea to governments, fellow citizens in all sectors at all levels, to recognise the importance and value of the digital commons and of a free culture in the emerging post-crisis economy. It is a guide to policy intervention and action to safeguard the digital commons and establish essential foundations for a sustainable knowledge society.
A free culture (as in “freedom”, not as “for free”) is free of restrictions on collaboration on knowledge and cultural production. Knowledge and cultural resources are used liberally, and customarily shared, adapted and co-produced. Such freedom encourages diversity, interaction across divides, and enables knowledge to flow freely in society, facilitating cultural development. New opportunities arise, accommodating multiple perspectives, cooperation and innovation towards global sustainability.
These opportunities are under threat from powerful and influential organisations with a vested interest in enclosing the commons, pre-empting this vision. The document elaborates on the opportunities and threats, and presents a guide to securing a sustainable knowledge society. Rights of citizens are stated alongside technical implications and requirements for legal reform. Education and access to knowledge are highlighted as priority areas for strategic action and policy intervention.
This is also an open invitation to rise to the challenges of our time in a spirit of cooperation, sharing and collaborative action.

Introduction

**Global Concerns**
Environmental climate change biodiversity pollution water Economic poverty financial crisis Social health peace and security education General food security disaster management

Humanity is facing unprecedented challenges in terms of sustainability, on a planetary scale. Global economic, social and environmental issues are affecting each and every one of us in real terms. The issues are interrelated and inherently complex requiring attention at international and local levels harmonising diverse perspectives across cultures and divides for innovative sustainable solutions.

Opportunities

At the same time, we are in the midst of a revolution in the way that society's collective knowledge and cultures advance and co-evolve. The Internet, on account of its foundation on open standards, enabling interoperability and higher level innovation, has become a platform for just that. Irrespective of location or persuasion, individuals are collaborating and participating in cultural production and decision making. Ideas and knowledge are flowing freely in ways and on scales never before possible. Such social production has already resulted in software for all to use and adapt, knowledge resources covering all subject areas, and rapid innovation in network environments and practices. Innovative forms of social, economic and political organisation are emerging. This revolution is comparable to that brought about by the printing press.

Today's institutions, industries, structures and conventions will not survive into the future unless they adapt to these realities. Those that embrace change and seize the new opportunities will thrive.

Implications

Social equity

Equality and freedom are fundamental principles of democracy, and of a free culture. A free culture encourages freedom of expression and civil engagement. The new information and communications technologies enable access to knowledge and higher levels of inclusivity, enriching the diversity of individuals and groups able to contribute and participate.

A free culture is conducive to innovation and the emergence of new models for citizen engagement in the provision of public goods and services based on a ‘commons’ approach. ‘Governing of the commons’ refers to negotiated rules and boundaries for managing the collective production and stewardship of and access to, shared resources. A free culture honours participation, inclusion, transparency, universal access, and is fundamental to realising the social and economic potential and sustainability of the commons. A free culture is not necessarily linked to the state or other conventional political institutions and accommodates multiple self-organising socio-economic systems. Such freedom facilitates social equity, self-determination and social solidarity.

**Products and Services Examples**
Free software software development systems integration support services migration services documentation and training Free knowledge resources Learning resources learning design accreditation teaching Open publication Open Access Journals e.g. PLOS publication fees Free cultural resources Net labels Nanocasting self-regulation.

Economic innovation

The commons and associated connected and collaborating communities extend “the economy” with an important source of value for all sectors through social production.

The financial crisis has exposed severe limitations and flaws in some of the most dominant contemporary economic models. Free culture, an extension of the ethically founded free software movement, demonstrates alternative ways of doing business which may be inherently more sustainable. Production is based on crafts or trades where the producers retain control of the production and delivery processes and are freed from intermediaries. Knowledge, education and innovation are democratised, and production is driven by autonomous initiative and solidarity. Communities self-organise and self-govern. Exchange occurs according to each person’s abilities and offerings to service mutual needs. Earnings are distributed fairly according to the work carried out.

In general, artists, researchers, authors and producers of other cultural and knowledge resources are the primary subjects of concern in this charter.

For knowledge and cultural production, community-driven social economy models are already providing a number of increasingly viable options for enterprises which use and sustain the digital commons.

The GNU/Linux operating system, the countless free software utilities and applications, the associated innovative enterprises and communities attest to the viability of these models. Beyond software, on the level of knowledge, Wikipedia, WikiEducator, Open Courseware, Connexions, other OER initiatives, free licensed Net Labels, open access publications and many other examples show that innovative models, in tune with the values and aspirations of a free culture, are equally viable.

The models vary according to the types of products and services required or offered. For example, the investment and services required to produce and deliver a full length feature film or documentary differ from those required for an online collaboratively produced (and continually evolving) encyclopaedia. The first may require significant up-front investment and tight management of the production process and continuity by teams with well defined skills profiles. The second relies primarily on the energy of volunteers with specific knowledge in their diverse areas of interest working relatively independently without expectations on time lines; continuity is only required within each article (or small set of related articles), and consistency is achieved via a simple set of guidelines.

The models also vary in maturity from “experimental” to established de facto standard practices.

**Investment and Revenue Streams**
Non-monetary donations & exchange gifts time banking barter Direct financing subscriptions donations, awards, grants general or specific use e.g. infrastructure public funding basic incomes subsidies contracts & commissions Shared capital matching funds cooperatives crowd funding open capital community investment collective investment	Reciprocal service exchange time banking Loans Peer-to-peer banking Private funding venture investment shares private patronage business investment Commercial activities products services Cost reduction peer production disintermediation e.g. p2p and low cost streaming

Common principles of the more successful approaches include an emphasis on community building, diversity of service offerings, disintermediation and establishing multiple sources of investment and revenue streams to reduce dependencies.

Combinations of these options are increasingly viable both for independent producers and the content industry as a whole with clear benefits for society.

Threats

Terms to avoid or use with care
Intellectual property ... The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical property. ... To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual property”. Piracy ... If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbour.” http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html

In spite of these opportunities, powerful players in the entertainment industry, among communications service providers and centres of political power, persist with outmoded strategies and business models based on property, ownership and contracts associated with rivalrous resources. Digital resources are non-rivalrous. If you give me a copy, you still have have yours, and, where applicable, we can now collaborate on enhancing the resource. Forms of exclusive appropriation and enclosures of culture and knowledge have already emerged under the control of restrictive monopolies or oligopolies, often with the support of ill-advised governments, or misguided international agencies and organisations.

To maintain and grow their power base or sources of profit, these parties seek to perpetuate the illusion of scarcity and enforce control of the Internet and its users. Strategies include use of terms such as “piracy” and “intellectual property”, lobbying for legislation and support for the development of tools to control society and create artificial scarcity of digital cultural and knowledge resources.

These practices severely undermine the potential of an inclusive and sustainable knowledge society. Restricting the flow of knowledge in society stifles innovation and suppresses socio-cultural evolution. Citizens become disempowered in terms of their ability to respond to and participate in the global knowledge society. Citizens' rights to education, access to information, culture, science and technology, freedom of expression, inviolability of communications and privacy are compromised. Protection of private interests is put above the public interest, holding back the development of society in general.

This charter calls for education of policy makers. It calls for policy and legal reform which promotes, enables and supports a free knowledge society and all that it entails. Reforms which empower and enable citizens to participate in co-creating a sustainable knowledge society.

Sustainability

Definitions of sustainability often refer to the "three pillars" of social, environmental and economic sustainability^[1]

Ultimately, this charter speaks to sustainable development – “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”^[2], taking care of the interactions among social, economic and environmental concerns.

As the ethics and principles of diversity, transparency, fairness, cooperation and sharing permeate society, connectedness and interdependence become clear.

Another representation of sustainability showing how both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits^[3]

Given the current context, all our policy making, law making, decision making and actions need to be performed in cognisance of the inter-connectedness of society in terms of socio-economics and natural resources.

Widespread adoption of the principles and establishment of the foundations for a free culture outlined in this charter are vital steps towards sustainability.

We urge governments, policy makers, major players in the public, private and civil sectors, and fellow citizens, to appreciate the value of the commons and of social production, and to recognise the potential of free knowledge communities for innovation and collaborative action towards sustainability on all levels. We urge reform and development of policy which supports and encourages a free culture; policies which enable and empower citizens to engage in the emerging knowledge society with the freedom to innovate in terms of how they do so.

A concise guide to establishing the foundations necessary to safeguard the opportunities of a free knowledge society and to facilitate and enable realisation of the potential follows.

Education and Access to Knowledge

**Vision**
Freedom to learn and knowledge for all towards collective wisdom for a sustainable world

**Education**
in its broadest sense is any act or experience that has a formative effect on the mind, character or physical ability of an individual. In its technical sense education is the process by which society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills and values from one generation to another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education

Learning is a life long process of social construction of meaning. We learn together by sharing knowledge, experience and cultural nuances. Access to knowledge is a pre-requisite for learning. Culture evolves as knowledge permeates society. Education involves a wide range of educational actors, technologies, entities and activities, including public and private education, formal and informal life-long learning activities. Our mission for education is to foster a culture of sharing and educational innovation that is efficient and sustainable:

**Free Knowledge Mission**
Enabling communities to empower themselves with knowledge

A foundation on free knowledge enables a free culture to flourish in which citizens may participate in realising the vision.

**Free cultural values include**
Social inclusion, participation and empowerment of all people in our society. Access to knowledge and educational resources and technology. Sharing and cooperation to help each other and our communities. Diversity of culture and perspectives. Collaboration and innovation to find appropriate and sustainable solutions.

To achieve this, we urge actions and policy intervention in the following areas.

Awareness

Imitation is innate. Copying, adapting, applying and sharing knowledge are core activities of any educational process. A free culture encourages these activities while many educators suppress them due to a lack of awareness of the options available (e.g. free licensing). To support and raise awareness among educators and learners we urge educational institutions and communities to:

Formulate, promote and implement policies which emphasises freedom among educators and learners to innovate, and to collaborate in the production of shared learning resources.
Support activities and provide resources to raise awareness and understanding of the sharing culture and its technical and legal enablers.
Showcase good practices and case studies to inspire and guide new projects and approaches.

Support

Education is a primary channel for developing our citizens and for achieving societal progress. We acknowledge the important role of educators to transfer the values of a sharing culture while facilitating learning. To perform this role effectively, educators need support in becoming exemplars who routinely use free software and free knowledge in their work, and engage in peer production of learning resources.

“Be the change you want to see in the world.” - Mahatma Gandhi

To so empower educators we urge institutions and leaning communities to:

Assure training and technical support for educators in the use of free software and in the use, modification (e.g. localisation), collaborative development and sharing of free knowledge resources.
Ensure educators are able to dedicate part of their time to learn, maintain, author and share learning resources, and thereafter reap the benefits of peer production (e.g. efficiency and quality).

Introduce reward mechanisms which evaluate and recognise contributions in educational peer production.

Stimulate and support networking and community building among educators and learners so that they can help each other. Connect them to existing networks and encourage the establishment of new communities, perhaps with local relevance.

Learning resources

Access to knowledge and learning resources is an essential enabler of education. Adapting resources for a specific classroom is always required. Free knowledge resources facilitate access and localisation and cater for cultural diversity. Quality improves through use of the resources as educators and learners collaborate on refining them. Efficiency is maximised through reuse of learning designs and other resources which may or may not require modification. We urge educational institutions, learning communities and educators to:

Encourage the release of existing and new learning resources into the public domain, or under free licenses which encourage sharing and collaborative development.

Similarly, release publicly funded materials into the public domain or under a free license without legal and technical restrictions on use, modification or sharing.
Ensure multiple distribution channels:
- Through the Internet, using well structured, open standards compliant protocols, and easy to use repositories.
- On other media such as CD/DVD or printed copies (e.g. using existing university-based publishers) available in public libraries and other facilities available to all citizens.
Emphasise that free knowledge resources may be modified as required for universal access; i.e. adapted to be accessible to all irrespective of social class, educational level, language, ethnicity, background, physical challenges, etc..
On a needs-driven basis, initiate and support projects to make the required modifications to specific resources for (or preferably by) specific groups.

Scientific and academic knowledge

Open Access publications provide access to the results of scientific research. They enhance learning opportunities and enable knowledge transfer across disciplines which may not otherwise have discovered each other. Thus we urge universities and research centres to:

Adapt policies on research so that they recognise the benefits of sharing data, analysis and research results, open access journals and self-archiving, in order to streamline scientific production and peer review, strengthen the dynamics of scientific debate and the immediacy and quality of feedback.
Stimulate and inspire innovative ways of supporting the production and release of peer reviewed materials by educators, learners, libraries and publishers.
Embrace the Open Access model for the publication of research results.
Refrain from applying for patents on the results of publicly funded research.
Irrevocably release patents held by public institutions under royalty-free terms and free of any other restrictions.
Release research data sets into the public domain or under free licenses without compromising ethical concerns (e.g. privacy).

Educational innovation

The role of the teacher is becoming a facilitator of learning, rather than the “sage on the stage”. With the mainstreaming of learner-centred approaches, the distinction between learner and teacher is becoming blurred. We are all teachers and learners. New technologies are being introduced into education (e.g. community networks, laptops, mobile phones, and other devices), enabling innovative approaches. Connecting free knowledge communities enables the benefits of peer production (e.g. efficiency and quality), and by connecting a diversity of perspectives, creates ideal conditions for educator and learner led innovation. Thus, we urge educational institutions and communities to:

Incentivise and reward inter-institutional collaborative work between teachers and students in the production of knowledge.
Encourage student involvement in peer learning and social production of learning resources.
Share credit between educators and students with respect to such social production and educational innovation.
Promote inter-institutional collaborative and multi-disciplinary work among educators in different fields.

Recognition and certification

New forms of technology-enhanced and collaborative learning are emerging and spreading throughout the formal and informal education systems. Resources produced and knowledge acquired through alternative channels, need to be recognised and assessed. Thus, we urge educational institutions and authorities to:

Establish accreditation schemes for peer produced free knowledge resources which are not necessarily associated with any particular institution.
Adapt institutional policies to permit use and co-development of such accredited resources.
Institute assessment and recognition of knowledge and skills acquired through alternative channels (e.g. self-learning with free knowledge resources which are not necessarily associated with any particular institution).
Integrate these practices with official and existing educational curricula.

Software, standards and policy

Free software enables transparency of information processing. It stimulates local ICT industries in “developing” countries by enabling self-determination and independence from multi-national companies with limited capability to service local needs. There is cooperation on improving the core software while participants service their clients with customisation and other services. The use of open standard file formats and protocols ensures technical interoperability, stimulates innovation and competition on a level playing field for products and services, enables platform independent access to digital information, and facilitates availability of knowledge and learning now and into the future.

In education, free software encourages experimentation with alternatives and the learning of concepts, as opposed to being intensively “trained” in the use of a specific piece of proprietary software with no awareness of alternatives or opportunities to delve deeper into the workings of the program. Above all, use of free software is consistent with the free culture values that we wish to transfer to successive generations in the emerging free knowledge society. In this context the Free Technology Academy^[4] can be an instructive example as it combines free educational materials, co-produced by international partners with the use and education of free software.

Thus we urge educational institutions and learning communities to:

Use free software learning tools in all subjects, administration systems and as a basis for their ICT infrastructure.
Support projects to further develop these tools.
Offer free software as a subject in itself.
Release all software developed in an educational environment and/or publicly funded under a free license.
Promote the use of free software in textbooks to perform computer-assisted learning activities such as arithmetic, algebra, numerical calculus, image editing, document composition, mapping, spatial analysis, visualisation, simulation, tests, etc.
Develop, provide and promote free software for education^[5].
Adhere to open standards in general but particularly those pertaining to education and the sharing of learning resources (e.g. IMS^[6], SCORM^[7]).
Reject restricting technologies such as DRM to assure long term access to learning resources and the freedom to adapt and share them.

Freedom and Public Knowledge

As digital communication and the Internet become pervasive and an integral part of public services provision, all citizens have the right to have at their disposal the technology, systems, products and infrastructures that enable access. Many countries have other priorities or sources of “unfreedom” (Amartya Sen, 1999^[8]) to address first, such as lack of nutrition, water, health, education, equality, …, before universal access to the Internet becomes relevant to all their citizens. Nevertheless, the most efficient and sustainable way to bridge the divides is to free society to participate.

This section presents citizens' rights and the required technical, public policy and legal foundations of a free knowledge society. Required services and service levels on the part of network service providers are also touched upon. We urge governments and international agencies to develop and implement policy which protects these rights and lays the foundations.

Privacy

Citizens have the right to:

browse the Internet and access resources anonymously
know in advance how their personal information is to be used
decide at any time to move, modify or remove their user data from any online service
protect their privacy and encrypt their communications
not receive unsolicited messages.

Net Freedom, Services and Regulation

In a free knowledge society:

Civil society and public administrations are free to provide and implement network services, most notably open standards compliant services which don't impose conditions on citizens.
- Connection is possible with one's choice of hardware and with free software.

Net neutrality is guaranteed. Within the network there are no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, or on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, or on the modes of communication allowed, provided such communication does not significantly degrade other traffic.
Internet access providers offer symmetrical connections or a reasonable download/upload ratio. Broadband access is a universal service for all citizens.
Citizens are protected against unfair practices by monopolies in telecommunications infrastructures and service provision. Citizens have the right to have access to more than one provider (public or private) and that the offer of this service is not subject to the acquisition of other products or services. Citizens are free to establish new providers.
Network providers fulfil agreed-upon access speeds. In pre-payment contracts, only the traffic explicitly transferred or demanded by the user are charged. Providers always offer users a flat rate tariff system.

Public Administration

In a free knowledge society:

Public sector, publicly funded projects and those that commit citizens by law or in a manner affecting their fundamental rights, require a level of transparency only possible with free software and open standards. When an open standards compliant free software solution does not exist, a project to develop the software and/or standard is initiated. In the interim only solutions that are publicly auditable are used in order to guarantee transparency.
The results of development funded by public money are always licensed under a free license, and all developed patents are released under royalty free terms and free of any other restrictions.
Governments guarantee non-exclusive free Internet access to every citizen independently of their places of residence, at least to the level required to access public services, exercise their rights as citizens, and take part in the knowledge society.

Software Procurement in public administration

In a free knowledge society:

Public procurement processes for software evaluate the total costs, including support and change management, and the costs of stopping the use of the software and migrating to alternative systems. The investment required to develop a free software solution where none exists is included in these assessments.
Accounting of public ICT expenditure indicates investment in hardware separately from software costs including licenses, maintenance, support and other services.

Legal Reform

We have identified shortcomings in national regulations and international treaties regarding the dissemination of culture and knowledge, in both private, contractual relations and international public policy. We suggest reforms necessary to overcome these problems. The conservative and defensive behaviour of the content production and distribution industries has led to a situation where creators and their audiences are pitted against each other. This conflict benefits largely the media conglomerates and government organisations by giving them control over global flows of information at the expense of citizens (users and producers of the information). This is detrimental to the public interest.

In this context the public interest is best served by supporting and ensuring continued creation of intellectual and cultural works of significant societal value, and to ensure all citizens have unfettered access to such works for a wide variety of uses.

Knowledge commons and public domain

Non-copyrightable Works:

Laws, government reports, political documents and speeches, or regulatory compliance information should be in the public domain, or released under free licenses where public domain is not an immediate option.
Sui generis database rights should not be introduced, and should be repealed in jurisdictions where they exist.

Public domain Works:

There has to be a guarantee that all public domain works are accessible.
Every jurisdiction should allow a work to be released directly in the public domain prior to the expiry of the general copyright term.
The results of developments funded by public money should always be licensed under a free license and all developed patents should be released under royalty free terms and free of any other restriction.
Research funded through educational institutions should be published under a free license according to an open access model. Policy makers should implement the recommendations of the Paris Accord^[9] on scholarly publishing.

Licensed Works:

Every legal system should facilitate and promote free and open licensing to the same extent as proprietary licensing.

Orphaned Works:

There should be freedom to use a copyrighted work if the copyright owner cannot be located after a due diligence search.

Freely available Works:

There should be no restriction on the freedom to access, link to and index any work that is already freely accessible to the public online, even if it is not under a free or open license.

Proprietary Works:

Copyright term should not exceed the minimum Berne term. In the longer term, we support the reduction of existing copyright terms. Copyright terms that are too long do not benefit artists, authors, their audiences or readers, citizens, or society.

Access to technology and net neutrality

Internet access is essential for learning and for the practical and meaningful exercises of freedom of expression, communication and participation in the knowledge society.
Citizens and consumers are entitled to an Internet connection that enables them to send and receive content of their choice, use services and run applications of their choice, connect hardware and use software of their choice that do not harm the network.
Citizens and consumers are entitled to an Internet connection that is free of any form of discrimination - whether blocking, limiting or prioritising - with regard to type of application, service or content or based on sender or receiver address.
IP addresses of citizens and consumers are potentially identifiable data and the data subject has a right of access to correct, delete, or prevent the transfer of their personal information.
Filtering of Internet content is a threat to fundamental rights, and is an invalid, ineffective and disproportionate solution for enforcement. No limitation or filtering should be carried out without a prior judicial ruling.
Citizens are entitled to access to a free, unlicensed band of the spectrum for digital communications, such as the analogue TV range and, in general, at least a 25% of any new range of the spectrum that is released in its current use.

Rights in a digital context

Author rights, patents, royalties and similar creativity incentives should not be considered as ends in themselves, but rather as mechanisms to promote public interest, innovation, access to science, technology and the arts.

Right to quote:

Quotation, defined as the extraction of a part of, but not the entirety, of a work must be defended in all cases as a vehicle for the democratic development of the information society. This must apply in all cases in which the material quoted has already been made public in advance, whether it is quoted for educational or scientific reasons, or for purely informational, creative purposes or any other purpose.

Private copying:

The rights of the individual in the private sphere and for personal use should not be undermined by the exclusive rights of the author.
There is no need for a copyright holder to authorise or be compensated for any reproduction, in any form, when dealing with works that have already been made public, when the reproduction is done for private use or sharing and when no direct or indirect economic profit is obtained from it.

Fair use:

There should be no requirement to seek an author’s permission for the reproduction or dissemination of artistic, scientific or technical works that have already been presented publicly, when the purpose is educational, scientific research, information, satirical or incidental to the principal creative objective, as long there is attribution and all moral rights are respected.
The defence of the right to private copying and fair use of works should be firm and absolute, given that copying is the very basis for learning and culture. Authors/creators are indebted to shared culture and for this reason their contributions to culture should not be subject to any form of compensation beyond commercial use of their work (sales, fees and royalties related to said sales or performances).
There should be a strong emphasis on defending the right to information.
There should be a strong emphasis on preserving the right to parody.
In addition, we subscribe to the delineated list of fair uses compiled in “Article 3-1 - General Limitations and Exceptions to Copyrights” of draft document Access to Knowledge 2005.
Remedies should be limited to proven monetary damages for actual counterfeiting. Lost sales and statutory damages cannot be applied to private copying and personal use. Injunctions shall not be issued if they constitute a prior restraint.
Non-Original or Creative Works: Facts and Works lacking in creativity (“a de minimus quantum of creativity”) should not be subject to copyright or copyright-like protections.

Freedom to innovate:

Freedom and innovation are strongly related. Repressive legal regimes that reduce freedom also tend to harm innovation. People need the freedom to change, modify, improve and test inventions, devices, and systems, and to freely engage in critical speech regarding such innovations.

Patents:

Refer to A2K draft, Part 4.

Stimulating creativity and innovation

We declare our concern for the well-being of artists and authors. We therefore propose various methods for collectively rewarding artistic creation and innovation with the following criteria:

There should be diverse sources of support for creative communities including commercial use, direct fiscal support by consumers and public investment
In order to promote the fare remuneration of artists, the role of intermediaries should all be limited. The role of currently existing intermediaries should be reduced to critical functions such as collecting usage data and the just distribution of remunerations to authors.

Author rights and royalties distribution:

Creators should receive a fare reward for their work. In works where Royalties cannot be guaranteed in a reasonable quantity and time, fees should be guaranteed. The objective should be the creation of a stable employment environment in the cultural industry that would not necessarily be totally dependent on the ups and downs of royalties.
Differences in bargaining power produce unfair outcomes between creative individuals and the commercial entities that invest in, market and/or sell culture and knowledge goods and lead to many creative works being withheld from the public. Authors/creators should be paid equitably for the activity they are involved in, whether or not they are members of a collecting society. Unfair contracts between authors and publishers should not be enforced by courts. Within 30 years of signing a contract with a publisher or employer, the author or her heirs should have an opportunity to regain the rights to the work under copyright. This shall not affect the validity of any existing licenses to use works, or open licenses to use works granted to the public, including those which have conditions that protect the commons.
When there is commercial exploitation of a work, rules regarding economic rights should protect the economic interests of creative communities, and ensure that third parties such as distributors do not prevent creative communities from having a fair share of the rewards, including fair royalties for creative persons.
All “digital levies” that indiscriminately sanction everybody in the name of “compensation for artists” and that attempt to penalise activities that are in no way criminal should be abolished.

Royalties management and collecting societies:

Authors/creators shall always be able to revoke the mandate of the collecting societies.
Collection societies are private entities that only and exclusively manage the “accounts” of their members which are never the entire creative community.
Free competition should be permitted as with all private entities. Legal monopolies for collection societies should be abolished.
Authors and editors should not be represented by the same entity, as in the days of vertical organisations.
Above all, collection societies should only collect money and manage works that are registered with the collecting society, and should not collect money for uses of works that are explicitly licensed under free licences. No collection society should be allowed to prevent artists or authors from using free licenses.

Access for works for persons with reading disabilities

When accessible formats of works for persons who have reading disabilities are created under copyright limitations and exceptions, the global legal systems should enable cross border import and export of such works.

Transparency

In order to avoid the breach of any fundamental rights (e.g. invasion of privacy, freedom of expression, etc.) there is a need for transparency in enforcement. This must include information on the authorities in charge of the law’s application and on the nature of the obligatory procedures. The government should ensure, through a transparent and public process, the existence of systems of evaluation of how the norms are applied. The results published by the independent experts hired for the evaluation (see – database directive) should be taken into consideration in the norm-setting process. A meaningful way to ensure the transparency process is to have obligatory transparency audits.

We are promoting a three strikes systems for violators of the public right to be informed. There is a public interest in transparency of lobbying activities. A transparent process in national and international norm setting needs to include at least:

Public access to documents related to this process, the possibility to attend meetings (including via the Internet) and to be to able to read the meeting minutes. These minutes will include the names of the attendees, advisers, and the cast votes.
Details on the persons that are making the decisions.
Meaningful opportunities to submit comments to the norm-setting process. The comments from all the contributors shall be made public. A dialogue between all parties is necessary, especially in responding to comments in writing. Public voices should be part of the public record.
Information on any evidence that is presented to promote or justify policies, including their sources and their reliability. Independent evaluation or peer review of data relevant to the copyright and patent systems is needed.
Democratic access to statistics that are needed to evaluate the way that copyright and patent systems work, including for example the impact of such measures on prices, the royalties that are paid to creators for access to works or the impact on fundamental rights and freedoms.

Reverse Three-Step Test (Paradox on the Three Steps Test)

(The three-step test got introduced in the Berne Convention in 1967 and was later also added to the TRIPS treaty. It is a system that tend to prevent any reduction of the scope and duration of copyright. In this Charter, following a very strong legal tendency to prevent the further erosion of the public domain, we have devised a reverse three-step test for preserving our liberties in an information society).

Innovation, creativity, and access to knowledge may only be limited or constrained when and if the three conditions below are met simultaneously:

exceptional circumstances of public interest;
when methods are used that do not undermine or discriminate against the use, transformation and dissemination of knowledge, creative works and technology infrastructures, services and software;
when such restrictions do not violate human and civil rights in the information society and are not otherwise inconsistent with democratic culture.

References

Related to education and access to knowledge

The Budapest Open Access Initiative, 2002, http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
The Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, 2003, http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/
Capetown Open Education Declaration, 2007, http://www.capetowndeclaration.org
Open University Campaign, Wheeler Declaration, 2008, http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign
Open Standards Definition, http://freeknowledge.eu/definitions/openstandards
Definition of Free Cultural Works: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
Declaration on Libre Knowledge: http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge
Free Software Definition: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Why schools should exclusively use Free Software, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/schools.html
The Trivandrum Declaration, Free Software, Free Society, 2005, http://fsfs.in/content/trivandrum-decleration
Indian Free & Open Source community Charter: http://fosscomm.in/Charter
Franklin Street Statement on Freedom and Network Services: http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/

Related to politics

Benkler The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (Yale Press 2006) [1]
Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action Ostrom, Elinor, Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Jeremy Rifkin, The Third Industrial Revolution http://www.foet.org/lectures/lecture-hydrogen-economy.html
Fuster Morell, Mayo (2009) "Online creation communities for the building of digital commons: Participation as an eco-system?” Contribution to the panel on “Organizational principles and political implications” of the International forum on free culture – Barcelona October 30 2009 - Mayo Fuster Morell - Participation as an eco-system
George, S. 2004. Another World Is Possible If ..., Verso, New York.
David Bollier "A New Politics of the Commons" Published in Renewal magazine.
Felix Stalder. Between democracy and spectacle. Limitations of the web2.0 discourse
Hilary Wainwright: Brainstorming questions responding to the challenge to think about the political implications of free culture
De la Web 2.0 a la Web Libre y punto: Por una liberación del software y los servicios que dan soporte a la web social (es) From Web 2.0 to Free Web: For the release of software and services that support the social web (en)
Graeme Chesters and Ian Welsh Complexity and Social Movement: Process and Emergence in Planetary Action Systems
Lula and Free Software - Lula da Silva, Brazilian President, talks about the importance of Free Software and the Internet at the 10th Free Software Internacional Forum (FISL), in Porto Alegre, Brazil - June 26th, 2009
Brazilian Digital Culture Forum - public and open social network for the formulation and construction of democratic public policies for digital culture.
Berlinguer, Marco (2009) “Investigating organisational logics and mentalities present in contemporary social movements - Parallels between Open Source and Free Software Movement and the Global Justice movement”. Contribution to the track “Organizational principles and political implications” of the International forum on free culture – Barcelona October 30 2009.
Grupo Blogx Populi, de Guifi.net. From Web 2.0 to Free Web - For the release of software and services that support the social web (en)

Related to legal reform

draft document A2K 2005 (http://keionline.org/content/view/235/1)
Necessary and Urgent Measures to Protect the Knowledge Society by eXgae (http://co-ment.freeknowledge.eu/text/6/)
La Quadrature du Net on Net Neutrality (http://www.laquadrature.net/en/Net_neutrality)
Consumer International. IP-watchlist09 (http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/ip-watchlist09.pdf)
Proposal made to the ONU´s World Organisation for Intellectual Property made by Amigos del Desarrollo (Friends of Development) (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, Kenya, Perou, Dominican Republic, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania and Venezuela) (http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_11/scp_11_5.pdf)
- Daniel J. Gervais. "Towards a New Core International Copyright Norm: The Reverse Three-Step Test" Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 9 (2005): 1-37(http://works.bepress.com/daniel_gervais/1)
- Asking for an open internet in Europe (http://www.euopeninternet.eu/)
The Norwegian principles NRA.(http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf)
FCC 4 first principles (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.doc)
Julius Genachowski’s speech from 21 Sept adding principle 5 & 6(http://openinternet.gov/read-speech.html)
PiratPartiet Principles (http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english)
Adelphi_Charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphi_Charter)
BlackOutEurope (http://blackouteusp.wordpress.com/)
Koleman Strumpf, Felix Oberholzer-Gee - Harvard Business School Report on Filesharing and Copyright (http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf)
Carta Europea de los Derechos Ciudadanos en la Era Digital (http://www.enriquedans.com/?s=carta&x=0&y=0)
APC Internet Rights Charter (http://www.apc.org/en/node/5677/)

Glossary

Access

In general, this term refers to physical access to ICT infrastructure. However, in this document, it is used synonymously with universal access (below).

Berne Convention

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, usually known as the Berne Convention, is an international agreement governing copyright, which was first accepted in Berne, Switzerland in 1886.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works

Broadband

The term broadband can have different meanings in different contexts. In this document, broadband generally refers to high capacity Internet access. The text refers to Recommendation ITU-i113 which defines broadband as a “transmission capacity that is faster than primary rate Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) at 1.5 or 2.0 Megabits per second (Mbits)”.

The term's meaning has undergone substantial shifts as advances in technology permit higher and higher capacities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband

Closed standard

A closed standard is a file format, protocol or program which has wide public acceptance, but which does not comply with the requirements for a free or open standard. Examples include file formats or protocols whose specifications are not publicly available, software whose source code is not available, and patent-encumbered technologies. Closed standards are typically developed by private companies with limited public or even industry participation.

Commons

The Commons refers to resources that are collectively owned.^[10] This can include everything from land to software.^[11] The process by which the commons are transformed into private property is often termed enclosure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons

In this document, we refer to the digital cultural and knowledge commons, which consist of Internet resources (e.g. texts, sound or video clips, software, etc.) which may be used for any purpose, adapted and shared for collective benefit. Associated communities self-organise to manage the commons, respecting participation, inclusion, transparency and long-term sustainability.

Commons-based peer production

Commons-based peer production is a term coined by Harvard Law School professor Yochai Benkler to describe a new model of economic production in which the creative energy of large numbers of people is coordinated (usually with the aid of the Internet) into large, meaningful projects mostly without traditional hierarchical organisation (and often, but not always, without or with decentralized financial compensation). Often used interchangeably with the term social production, Benkler compares commons-based peer production to firm production (where a centralized decision process decides what has to be done and by whom) and market-based production (when tagging different prices to different jobs serves as an attractor to anyone interested in doing the job).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons-based_peer_production

Computer Implemented Invention

"an invention whose implementation involves the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, the invention having one or more features which are realised wholly or partly by means of a computer program."^[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent

Coopetition

Co-opetition occurs when companies work together for parts of their business where they do not believe they have competitive advantage, and where they believe they can share common costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coopetition

Copyleft

A copyleft license is a free license that requires all further distribution with or without modifications to be made under the same conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

De facto standard

A de facto standard is a custom, convention, product, or system that has achieved a dominant position by public acceptance or market forces (such as early entrance to the market). De facto standards have not been through rigorous inclusive and participative standardisation processes, and therefore cannot qualify as open standards. Also see Standard (below) for a definition of technical standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_standard

Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)

In this document we use this term as a substitute for Digital Rights Management, a generic term for access control technologies that can be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to try to impose limitations on the usage of digital content and devices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_restrictions_management

Disintermediation

In economics, disintermediation is the removal of intermediaries in a supply chain: "cutting out the middleman".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation

Education

Education, in its broadest sense is any act or experience that has a formative effect on the mind, character or physical ability of an individual. In its technical sense education is the process by which society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills and values from one generation to another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education

Equality

See social equity below.

Firmware

Firmware is software that internally controls various electronic devices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware

FLOSS (Free / Libre and Open Source Software)

An acronym covering both free software and open source software. The ethical foundations of the free software definition distinguish it from the open source definition which is grounded in the efficiency of the associated software development methodology and acceptability of the term "open source" in the software industry.

Free cultural works

Free Cultural Works are defined as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose. It also describes certain permissible restrictions that respect or protect these essential freedoms. The definition distinguishes between free works, and free licenses which can be used to legally protect the status of a free work. The definition itself is not a license; it is a tool to determine whether a work or license should be considered "free."

http://freedomdefined.org/Definition

Free culture movement

The free culture movement is a social movement that promotes the freedom to distribute and modify creative works, using the Internet as well as other media for collective benefit. The movement consists of a variety of communities (e.g. free software, free knowledge and free art) who value inclusivity, transparency, social equity, social solidarity and sharing.

The movement objects to overly restrictive copyright and patent laws which they argue hinder creativity and lead to a "permission culture", rather than a free culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture

Free knowledge

See libre knowledge (below). Also see the definition of free cultural works (above) which is essentially equivalent.

Free license

A Free License, or libre license, is a license which grants users the freedom to read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the particular work; to learn from or with it; to copy, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to share derived works for the benefit of the community.

Free/Libre licenses include:

More on free licenses at http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses

http://www.libre.org/communities/license

Free software

Free software is software for which users are free to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, as a user you have four essential freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Interoperability

Interoperability is the capability of a product or system, whose interfaces are fully disclosed, to interact and function with other products or systems, without any access or implementation restrictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability

Level playing field

A level playing field is a concept about fairness, not that each player has an equal chance to succeed, but that they all play by the same set of rules. A metaphorical playing field is said to be level if no external interference affects the ability of the players to compete fairly. Although some may view "government interference" to slant the field in reality the level playing field is created and guaranteed by the implementation of rules and regulations. Building codes, material specifications, Open Standards and zoning create a starting point, a minimum standard, --- a "level playing field".

Libre

Free as in freedom, as opposed to gratis (free of charge). Specifically, in this document, the adjective implies all the freedoms associated with free software and libre resources: freedom to make copies, to modify and share unmodified or modified versions, and to use them for any purpose.

Libre file format

A libre file format is an open file format which is (additionally) not encumbered by any copyrights, patents, trademarks or other restrictions so that anyone may use it at no monetary cost for any purpose.

Libre hardware

Hardware that is designed and offered in the same manner as software libre. In this document we are referring to computer and networking components.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_hardware

Libre knowledge

Free/Libre Knowledge can be acquired, interpreted and applied freely, it can be re-formulated according to one's needs, and shared with others for community benefit. In today's world, where knowledge may be captured and shared electronically, this freedom is not automatically preserved, and we elaborate this definition for explicit knowledge:

(explicit) Free/Libre Knowledge is knowledge released in such a way that users are free to read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience it; to learn from or with it; to copy, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to share derived works similarly (as free knowledge) for the benefit of the community.

Representations of free knowledge must be conveniently accessible for modification and sharing. For example, using Free software and Free file formats.

"Explicit knowledge" is knowledge captured on some medium, usually in a form representable on a computer (e.g. text, sound, video, animation, executable program, etc.).

Users of libre knowledge are free to

(0) use the work for any purpose

(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs

(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part

(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result.

Freedoms 1 and 3 require free file formats and free software as defined by the Free Software Foundation.

http://www.libre.org/communities

Libre knowledge resource

A libre resource which holds knowledge.

Libre license or free license

See free license

Libre resource

A libre resource is a (typically digital) resource (such as text, source code, an image, sound, multimedia, etc. or combinations of these) represented on a device or medium in a free/open file format, which is accessible and modifiable with free software, and released under a license which grants users the freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share enhancements or derived works.

http://wikieducator.org/Libre_resources

Libre software

See software libre.

Libre standard (or free standard)

A libre standard is a standard whose specification is publicly available. Users of a libre standard have the same freedoms associated with software libre (below), and the freedom to participate in its development process. The standardisation process typically requires a complete free software reference implementation which demonstrates that it is implementable and renders it usable. A libre standard is not patent-encumbered.

Net neutrality

A principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, or on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, or on the modes of communication allowed, provided such communication does not significantly degrade other traffic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Open access

Three initiatives in particular have helped grow Open Access - the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, - and are recognised as historical, defining moments in the growth of this movement. There are several definitions of Open Access, see for an introduction and an extensive overview. However, the main requirements for a contribution to be Open Access are:

it removes all price barriers for the users to access it (given the user has an Internet connection) and
it removes enough permission barriers to support all the uses customary in legitimate scholarship. The only constraints an author can pose should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited. These requirements can be defined more precisely as follows.

Open Access contributions are those works that satisfy two conditions:

The author(s) and right holder(s) of such contributions grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship (community standards will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now), whether in print or online.

A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of the permission as stated above, in an appropriate standard electronic format is deposited (and thus published) in at least one online repository using suitable technical standards (such as the Open Archive definitions) that is supported and maintained by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established organisation that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, interoperability, and long-term archiving.

Acknowledgements

Participants in the Free Culture Forum 2009
- please add and elaborate ... e.g. if specific individuals, organisations, etc. are worthy of special recognition ....

Licenses

This Charter is published under a dual license; you can republish under either one or both of these licenses:

This article or parts of this article are based on the working group documents produced during the Free Culture Forum and Wikieducator article Barcelona Charter for Innovation Creativity and Access to Knowledge - Libre Interpretation licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. You can help to improve the article by commenting on the discussion tab.

[1] Adams, W.M. (2006). "The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century." Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, 29–31 January, 2006. Retrieved on: 2009-02-16.

[2] United Nations General Assembly (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 - Development and International Co-operation: Environment.

[3] Ott, K. (2003). "The Case for Strong Sustainability." In: Ott, K. & P. Thapa (eds.) (2003).Greifswald’s Environmental Ethics. Greifswald: Steinbecker Verlag Ulrich Rose. ISBN 3931483320. Retrieved on: 2009-02-16.

[4] Free Technology Academy http://ftacademy.org/; An international network of educational institutes cooperates around a master level course programme on Free Software and Open Standards through an online campus; all educational materials are published under free licenses.

[5] .g. eXe and see FLOSS4Edu: http://www.wikieducator.org/FLOSS4Edu_Tools_etc.

[6] ttp://www.imsglobal.org/

[7] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCORM

[8] Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom, Anchor Books, New York.

[ftn6-9] ttp://www.tacd-ip.org/blog/the-paris-accord/

[10] Reclaiming the Commons, David Bollier, Boston Review, 2003

[11] 'The Commons', Free Software Magazine

[12] Computer-Implemented Inventions (CII) cited at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent (2009/12/7).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

Free Culture Forum Charter

Charter for Innovation Creativity and Access to Knowledge

Contents

Preface about Free Knowledge

Introduction

Opportunities

Implications

Social equity

Economic innovation

Threats

Sustainability

Education and Access to Knowledge

Awareness

Support

Learning resources

Scientific and academic knowledge

Educational innovation

Recognition and certification

Software, standards and policy

Freedom and Public Knowledge

Privacy

Net Freedom, Services and Regulation

Public Administration

Software Procurement in public administration

Legal Reform

Knowledge commons and public domain

Access to technology and net neutrality

Rights in a digital context

Stimulating creativity and innovation

Access for works for persons with reading disabilities

Transparency

Reverse Three-Step Test (Paradox on the Three Steps Test)

References

Related to education and access to knowledge

Related to politics

Related to legal reform

Glossary

Acknowledgements

Licenses

Navigation menu

Search