Re: Is an English license mandatory in Debian? (was: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2)
On 20.02.19 21:30, Christian Kastner wrote: > On 20.02.19 11:37, Giacomo Tesio wrote: >> This is starting to be a bit theoretical, ^^^ This particular sentence got dropped from my previous reply -- sorry! > No, not this particular example we were discussing [...]
Re: Is an English license mandatory in Debian? (was: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2)
On 20.02.19 11:37, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > I note you still don't answer my question. > > Let me restate this: is an English license mandatory in Debian? > If so, shouldn't it be noted somewhere? E.g. in the DFSG? IIRC, whatever license is acceptable (even if in English) has ultimately always been up to ftp-master, so only they can answer that, sorry. > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 16:06, Christian Kastner wrote: >> >> Licensee being fooled by the translation implies that they assigned (at >> least some) value to the translation, which is something that the text >> expressly tells them not to do. >> >> Licensee ignored Licensor's disclaimer, and it's all but impossible to >> see a judge fault the Licensor for the Licensee's notable ignorance. > > This is starting to be a bit theoretical, No, not this particular example we were discussing (and note that I was very specific about my previous opinion being limited to this example alone). I didn't claim the text was "non-authoritative", I specifically claimed that it was "void" (as per its own declaration of being of "no value"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(law) The example below, which you seem to see as equivalent, is entirely different, and much more complex. Being purely theoretical, I don't see the merit of going into the specifics of why, sorry. but nevertheless interesting. > Imagine if you were right and a Chinese or Arabic web service > porposedly did a translation error in the _non-authoritative_ English > translation of their Term of Services. > A simple negation got accidentally inserted midtext. > > The English text states "By using the Service, the User will NOT > assign a non-exclusive, worldwide, transderable copyright to the > Service Provider on any contents created by the User". > > Do you really think that a Judge would recognise the copyright > assignment to the Service Provider just because the ToS states, > clearly and bluntly, that the English text is not autoritative? > > > Judges do errors, but they are not dumb computers. > > > Giacomo Regards, Christian
Is an English license mandatory in Debian? (was: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2)
I note you still don't answer my question. Let me restate this: is an English license mandatory in Debian? If so, shouldn't it be noted somewhere? E.g. in the DFSG? On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 16:06, Christian Kastner wrote: > > Licensee being fooled by the translation implies that they assigned (at > least some) value to the translation, which is something that the text > expressly tells them not to do. > > Licensee ignored Licensor's disclaimer, and it's all but impossible to > see a judge fault the Licensor for the Licensee's notable ignorance. This is starting to be a bit theoretical, but nevertheless interesting. Imagine if you were right and a Chinese or Arabic web service porposedly did a translation error in the _non-authoritative_ English translation of their Term of Services. A simple negation got accidentally inserted midtext. The English text states "By using the Service, the User will NOT assign a non-exclusive, worldwide, transderable copyright to the Service Provider on any contents created by the User". Do you really think that a Judge would recognise the copyright assignment to the Service Provider just because the ToS states, clearly and bluntly, that the English text is not autoritative? Judges do errors, but they are not dumb computers. Giacomo
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
On 2019-02-19 14:46, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > I think you are misreading my statement. I think it's the other way around ;-) > I'm NOT saying that a Judge would consider the English text as legally > binding: only the Arabic version is. > > I'm saying that Judges will consider all elements provided by the > parties and, if one party claims to have been fooled by a translation > error in the text distributed by the Licensor they will consider such > error as a Licensor's faulty, not a Licensee one. Licensee being fooled by the translation implies that they assigned (at least some) value to the translation, which is something that the text expressly tells them not to do. Licensee ignored Licensor's disclaimer, and it's all but impossible to see a judge fault the Licensor for the Licensee's notable ignorance. (This opinion is stated for this this specific case. It's not impossible, or even uncommon, to challenge disclaimers in general, but this one here is pretty clear-cut). -- Christian Kastner
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 14:18, Christian Kastner wrote: > > On 2019-02-19 09:58, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > >> This is the informal English translation of Waqf General Public > >> License. Anything but the Arabic version of the license has no > >> value except for convenience of our English speaking users. > > [...] > > > - a Judge will very likely take into account any interpretation > > issues due to errors in the translation distributed by the > > Licensor and mitigate any violation reconducibile to such > > errors. > > Careful! You are assigning legal value to a text that expressly > disclaims any legal value. > > A judge will almost certainly not consider the English text, as it > declares itself to be legally void. I think you are misreading my statement. I'm NOT saying that a Judge would consider the English text as legally binding: only the Arabic version is. I'm saying that Judges will consider all elements provided by the parties and, if one party claims to have been fooled by a translation error in the text distributed by the Licensor they will consider such error as a Licensor's faulty, not a Licensee one. Obviously this does NOT mean that the English translation would become authoritative, the Licensee would have to cease and desist on any activity not permitted by the Arabic license. BUT - the Licensor would likely be mandated to fix the translation - no fee for damage or loss would be recognised to the Licensor > > In no way it states that the translation is "rubbish" as Joerg called it. > > It may be useful from a user's perspective, but not from a legal > standpoint, which I guess is what matters most to ftp-master. The arguments above explains why it _might_ be enough to ftp-masters. Assuming that the license doesn't pose other issues beyond the language, at worst they might have to remove the package and any dependencies from Debian. However given that none of us is a lawyer, it's obviously a responsibility they would take and they have the right to pass. I'm IN NO WAY arguing that they should accept this license or any other license they don't feel so inclined. I'm just saying that if, to enter in Debian, the license of a package must be in English, such requirement should be stated explicitly somewhere. If, as Joerg stated before, it's impossible to > get enough DDs for every language that also know > their way in legal foo to deal with it - and then have em join ftpteam. having an English license become a pretty reasonable requirement. I think that Joerg might be wrong on this, but I trust Debian to reach a wise consensus on the topic. Just, if he is right, this should not be left as "implicit", don't you think? Giacomo
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
On 2019-02-19 09:58, Giacomo Tesio wrote: >> This is the informal English translation of Waqf General Public >> License. Anything but the Arabic version of the license has no >> value except for convenience of our English speaking users. [...] > - a Judge will very likely take into account any interpretation > issues due to errors in the translation distributed by the > Licensor and mitigate any violation reconducibile to such > errors. Careful! You are assigning legal value to a text that expressly disclaims any legal value. A judge will almost certainly not consider the English text, as it declares itself to be legally void. > In no way it states that the translation is "rubbish" as Joerg called it. It may be useful from a user's perspective, but not from a legal standpoint, which I guess is what matters most to ftp-master. -- Christian Kastner
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 22:49, Ben Finney wrote: > > Giacomo Tesio writes: > > It's not always possible to perform a lossless translation between two > > human languages, and I'm not sure if having two not perfectly > > equivalent licenses is such a best practice. > > That's not what Joerg proposed. It doesn't need to be perfect, it needs > meet only the lower bar that the party publsihing that text stands > behind its meaning as accurately representing their communication. > > In the absence of that, it's not for anyone else to authoritatively > claim that they have an accurate representation of the license author's > meaning. So it's a problem that can only be addressed by the license > author/publisher. > > Publishing a translation, while simultaneously saying “this translation > can't be relied on”, is totally worthless for a legal text with precise > meanings. First, the meaning of any legal text is only really established in court. That's is well known under Common Law, but it's true in Civil Law too through what is called the "interpretation of the Law" performed by the Judge. Obviously the interpretation is not arbitrary, the Judge repond of it to higher autorities and (at least in theory) to the people, but looking for "precise meanings" of a legal text, like if it was a program that the court execute, is simply wrong (at least for now). It's not by chance that Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote "summum ius, summa iniuria" way before computers were conceived. The Waqf GPL states: > This is the informal English translation of Waqf General Public > License. Anything but the Arabic version of the license has no > value except for convenience of our English speaking users. > When we talk about the License we refer to the Arabic version, > which is the only one we officially offer, we will try our best to > make other translation as accurate as possible but because > of the nature of human languages we use one single reference > language. Just like the LiLiQ licenses for French, it simply states that - the autoritative version is the Arabic one: - a Judge, whatever his language, will have to hire an Arabic translator, can't rely on the English translation provided - the English text has been done "for convenience of English speaking users" and that the licensor trie their "best to make other translation as accurate as possible", so - an English speaking user can reasonably expects to understand the message from the English version. - a Judge will very likely take into account any interpretation issues due to errors in the translation distributed by the Licensor and mitigate any violation reconducibile to such errors. In no way it states that the translation is "rubbish" as Joerg called it. It also explicitly states that, to Licensor knowledge, the "translation represents what they want to communicate". This seems entirely sensible from a legal and political perspective. If Debian doesn't have the resources to read with non English licenses and thus evaluate their conformance to its definition of freedom, there's **nothing** wrong with it. But there's nothing wrong into writing non English licenses for Free Software, either. So, don't you think the DFSG should simply state this condition clearly? Giacomo
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
أحمد المحموديwrites: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 04:37:39AM +, Landry, Walter wrote: >> However, this part >> >> > >> > Third - Coverage: >> > >> > Waqf license can cover the published works with other licenses that do >> > not conflict with it. Also Waqf can cover the parts that complement >> > the work of other licenses, or the works that have been exonerated by >> > domestic laws because of the expiry of their period. Waqf does not >> > cover works which are harmful or most likely to be harmful. >> >> is more troublesome. If I use this software for weapons, it sounds like >> I can not distribute modified versions? > ---end quoted text--- > > As far as I understand, this is a restriction on the use of the Waqf > license, not the software itself. The problem arises when I make modifications to the work that can not be covered by the license. Part 7 starts with The user can redistribute modifications only under this license ... Since 'bad' modifications can not be covered by the license, 'bad' modifications can not be distributed at all. Cheers, Walter Landry
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 04:37:39AM +, Landry, Walter wrote: > However, this part > > > > > Third - Coverage: > > > > Waqf license can cover the published works with other licenses that do > > not conflict with it. Also Waqf can cover the parts that complement > > the work of other licenses, or the works that have been exonerated by > > domestic laws because of the expiry of their period. Waqf does not > > cover works which are harmful or most likely to be harmful. > > is more troublesome. If I use this software for weapons, it sounds like > I can not distribute modified versions? ---end quoted text--- As far as I understand, this is a restriction on the use of the Waqf license, not the software itself. -- أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy) Digital design engineer GPG KeyIDs: 4096R/A7EF5671 2048R/EDDDA1B7 GPG Fingerprints: 6E2E E4BB 72E2 F417 D066 6ABF 7B30 B496 A7EF 5761 8206 A196 2084 7E6D 0DF8 B176 BC19 6A94 EDDD A1B7 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
Giacomo Tesio writes: > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 16:20, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > Best: Someone (read: License author) could publish a translation > > that is not saying "I'm rubbish". > > Are you sure that it's entirely possible? Yes. It's up to the party publishing the license whether they claim the translation represents what they want to communicate. > It's not always possible to perform a lossless translation between two > human languages, and I'm not sure if having two not perfectly > equivalent licenses is such a best practice. That's not what Joerg proposed. It doesn't need to be perfect, it needs meet only the lower bar that the party publsihing that text stands behind its meaning as accurately representing their communication. In the absence of that, it's not for anyone else to authoritatively claim that they have an accurate representation of the license author's meaning. So it's a problem that can only be addressed by the license author/publisher. Publishing a translation, while simultaneously saying “this translation can't be relied on”, is totally worthless for a legal text with precise meanings. -- \“We should be less concerned about adding years to life, and | `\ more about adding life to years.” —Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 | _o__) | Ben Finney
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
On 15317 March 1977, Giacomo Tesio wrote: Best: Someone (read: License author) could publish a translation that is not saying "I'm rubbish". Are you sure that it's entirely possible? No idea. It's not always possible to perform a lossless translation between two human languages, and I'm not sure if having two not perfectly equivalent licenses is such a best practice. LiLiQ licenses, for example, are written in French and the English translation is NOT authoritative CeCILL, also a french one, is good in french AND english... French wasnt the best example. :) Nah, don't come up with another. I'm sure there are tons of licenses in something different than english. There may be even useful ones. (Also, I personally doubt we do need yet another license in whatever language. We do have ENOUGH of them to chose from). Also, legislation varies both in times and places anyway so this policy might just be unfair (if not discriminatory) for people outside the US sphere of influence. Legislation is different anywhere, yes. And no, we are not able to judge against all possible systems, obviously. We do try to keep major points that we know off in mind. It's not just Arabic: what about licenses in Russian, in Chinese or Kiswahili? Same story. It's not actually a point against arabic, it's one thats equally valid for nearly any language on this planet. If there is a license in $random language and it states that all translations are rubbish, it has the same trouble. We don't need examples that use entirely different alphabets. :) Maybe Debian doesn't have the human resources to be "fair" in this regards. But if licenses in Debian must have their authoritative text in English, shouldn't it be noted somewhere in the DFSG? No. Because the DFSG lists something inherently unchanging and entirely independent from the human resources doing stuff. The inability of current members of a team in Debian to read and understand a random language and legal foo around it is (not so, but comparably) easily changeable. -- bye, Joerg
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 16:20, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > On 15317 March 1977, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > >> None of the ftpteam, to my knowledge, is able to read and understand the > >> arabic version, and this english translation is saying its worth > >> nothing. > > This sound like a severe cultural limitation though, affecting all > > non-english developers and users. > > Can any mitigation be put in place? > > Best: Someone (read: License author) could publish a translation that is not > saying "I'm rubbish". Are you sure that it's entirely possible? It's not always possible to perform a lossless translation between two human languages, and I'm not sure if having two not perfectly equivalent licenses is such a best practice. LiLiQ licenses, for example, are written in French and the English translation is NOT authoritative https://opensource.org/licenses/LiLiQ-P-1.1 https://opensource.org/licenses/LiLiQ-R-1.1 https://opensource.org/licenses/LiLiQ-Rplus-1.1 Also, legislation varies both in times and places anyway so this policy might just be unfair (if not discriminatory) for people outside the US sphere of influence. It's not just Arabic: what about licenses in Russian, in Chinese or Kiswahili? Maybe Debian doesn't have the human resources to be "fair" in this regards. But if licenses in Debian must have their authoritative text in English, shouldn't it be noted somewhere in the DFSG? Giacomo
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
On 15317 March 1977, Giacomo Tesio wrote: None of the ftpteam, to my knowledge, is able to read and understand the arabic version, and this english translation is saying its worth nothing. This sound like a severe cultural limitation though, affecting all non-english developers and users. Can any mitigation be put in place? Well, sure. Best: Someone (read: License author) could publish a translation that is not saying "I'm rubbish". Impossible: We could get enough DDs for every language that also know their way in legal foo to deal with it - and then have em join ftpteam. Slow, but workable if really needed: We could look for legal counsel for specific cases. I'm sure I forgot possibilities. -- bye, Joerg
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
أحمد المحموديwrites: > Hello, > > Debian contains some packages licensed under Waqf Public License in > non-free section. Most of the packages are switching to WPL-2 which I > think is DFSG compliant, so I am seeking your advice. To clarify, othman is one such package. The previous discussion on the Waqf Public license happened on debian-devel https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/07/msg00013.html There was some talk about all of the religious elements to the license. I would have preferred it if WPL-2 had clearly separated the religious preamble from the terms and conditions, but we get what we get. There is also the problem that the authoritative text is in Arabic. CeCILL-2, for example, considers both the French and English versions as authentic. I do not know whether the ftpmasters will be comfortable with this translation or not. In any event, I think the main problem with WPL-1 was that it included restrictions on use. Essentially, it was a "do good, not evil" kind of license. This one looks better in that regard. The important section > Second - Usage : > > The user is entitled to use the work for any purpose and the holder > advises not to use the work in harming others or in violation of the > permissive principles of Islam 5), and the holder is not responsible > for the user's violations of Islamic law or abuse of others in the use > of work. merely exhorts people to use it for good, but does not require it. However, this part > > Third - Coverage: > > Waqf license can cover the published works with other licenses that do > not conflict with it. Also Waqf can cover the parts that complement > the work of other licenses, or the works that have been exonerated by > domestic laws because of the expiry of their period. Waqf does not > cover works which are harmful or most likely to be harmful. is more troublesome. If I use this software for weapons, it sounds like I can not distribute modified versions? Cheers, Walter Landry
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 10:06, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > None of the ftpteam, to my knowledge, is able to read and understand the > arabic version, and this english translation is saying its worth > nothing. This sound like a severe cultural limitation though, affecting all non-english developers and users. Can any mitigation be put in place? Giacomo
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
On 15317 March 1977, أحمد المحمودي wrote: Debian contains some packages licensed under Waqf Public License in non-free section. Most of the packages are switching to WPL-2 which I think is DFSG compliant, so I am seeking your advice. This is the authoritative Arabic version of the license, followed by the informal English translation of the license. And it has this: --8<---cut here---start->8--- This is the informal English translation of Waqf General Public License. Anything but the Arabic version of the license has no value except for convenience of our English speaking users. When we talk about the License we refer to the Arabic version, which is the only one we officially offer, we will try our best to make other translation as accurate as possible but because of the nature of human languages we use one single reference language. --8<---cut here---end--->8--- Independent of whatever actual software is using this, we have a hard time accepting this license at all for anything better than non-free. None of the ftpteam, to my knowledge, is able to read and understand the arabic version, and this english translation is saying its worth nothing. And I also wonder if a pure translation is enough to "get it", as the preamble starts with a load of text around what Islam forbids (or not), how much does islamic rules knowledge come into play later? -- bye, Joerg
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
أحمد المحمودي writes: > This is the authoritative Arabic version of the license [Waqf Public > License 2.0], followed by the informal English translation of the > license. Thank you for providing both in this mailing list thread, for examination. The freedom or otherwise of software is in part dependent on the explicit text granting license for that software under the specific conditions. What software is distributed with a grant of Waqf General Public License 2.0? Where can we see the grant of license explicitly stating that? -- \ “The enjoyment of one's tools is an essential ingredient of | `\ successful work.” —Donald Knuth, _The Art of Computer | _o__) Programming_ | Ben Finney
Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
Hello, Debian contains some packages licensed under Waqf Public License in non-free section. Most of the packages are switching to WPL-2 which I think is DFSG compliant, so I am seeking your advice. This is the authoritative Arabic version of the license, followed by the informal English translation of the license. رخصة "وقف" العامّة بسم الله الرّحمن الرّحيم الإصدار الثّاني من رخصة وقف، ٣ المحرّم ١٤٣٥ رخصة “وقف” العامة مقدمة هذه الوثيقة هي الاتّفاقية الضابطة لأذون الاستفادة من المادّة المُغطاة بها، حيث تُعدّ بمثابة العقد الموقّع بين النّاشر و المُستفيد، فلكل عقد ضوابط و شروط، و إنّنا نرى أنّ الاتّفاقيات الاحتكارية لا تُقيّد فقط المُستفيد بل تؤثّر على قيمة العمل الفكري و تسلبه جوهره العلمي و تُحيله من نور يُستضاء به إلى مُجرّد سلعة فانية. حيث يملك أول مودعٍِ للعمل الفكري حقّ المُلكية الفكرية، و تنحصر رؤيتنا لهذه المُلكية بالصّورة المعنوية للعمل الفكري بذات نفسه وفق الضّوابط أدناه، بعكس الرّخص الاحتكارية التي تضع قيودًا مُجحفة تُبقي الطّرف الثّاني ضعيفًا و مُتشجّعًا لانتهاكها ما أمكَنه ذلك. لدينا رؤيتنا التي تقدّم البديل المُناسب حيث أنّنا نقدّم أعمالنا الفكرية من برامج حاسوبية و غيرها ابتغاء وجه الله، و التي تُمثّل الرّكيزة الأساسية لهذه الرّخصة و التي تميزها عن الرخص المملوكة، و على أي غايةٍ أخرى (مثل نشر العلم النّافع أو جني الأرباح) أن تتحقّق بوسيلة لا تخالف هذا الهدف الأسمى. في قناعتنا - التي لا نلزم أحدًا بها و التي لا يضيرك أن لا تشترك معنا فيها - أنّ الإسلام يحرّم و بشكلٍ قطعي حكر العلم والمعرفة و الإنتاج الفكري على وجه الإطلاق، و هذا التّحريم يأتي من عدة أوجه: حديث رسول الله صلّى الله عليه و سلم : “من كتم علمًا ألجمه الله يوم القيامة بلجامٍ من نار” 1) و قد جاءت كلمة العلم نكرةً في سياق الإطلاق فهي تنطبق على العلوم النّافعة للأُمّة غير الضّار نشرها. أنّ الإسلام حدّد ما يصحّ أن يكون مملوكًا، و ذلك لا ينطبق على العمل الفكري لأنّه ليس عينًا محصورًا و أغلب شروط اتفاقيات النّشر المملوكة تقع في بيع الغرر (ذاك أنّ ما لا يجوز بيعه لا يجوز تملكه) دلّ عليه ما ورد من النّهي عن بيع الغرر في صحيح مسلم (و يدخل فيه مسائل كثيرة غير منحصرة كبيع المعدوم و المجهول و ما لا يُقدر على تسليمه و ما لم يتمّ ملك البائع عليه) و ما ورد عن الأئمة الأربعة من فهمهم لهذا. لسنا بحاجة لابتداع شيء لنشر العلم لأنّ الأعمال الفكرية ليست مُحدثة و أنّ قرون الخير الأولى نشرت العلم دون تملكها. حبس المعرفة والعلم عمّن يحتاجهما هو إضرار بالناس لصالح قلةٍ منهم، وهذا ممّا نهى عنه الشّارع فلا ضرر و لا ضرار. انتفاء مبرر المصلحة إذا وجدت طرق لنشر الأعمال الفكرية و الرّبح منها دون كتمها. إنّ المتمعن في قوانين الملكية الفكرية المختلفة يجدها تتلخص بإعطاء النّاشر الحقّ في تحريم ما أحله الله ليكون ذلك مدخلًا له في كسب مادي، و لا علاقة لهذه القوانين بتقديم خدمة أو منتج معين، فالمادة “المملوكة” مُبهمة غامضة و ادّعاء ملكيتها يفتح باب الابتزاز. و نحن في وقف (كما في العديد من الرخص المُضادة لحكر التّوزيع) تهمّنا مصلحة عموم البشر على نظيرتها لدى مُعظّمي المصلحة الذّاتية، و لا نغفل عن اهتمامنا بمصلحة صاحب العمل الرّاجي للثّواب من الله عزّ و جلّ، فنعتقد أنّ حقوق الطّبع و التّوزيع “ممنوحة” و ليست “محفوظة” و ذلك كما أسلفنا وفق الضوابط أدناه. و نقف هنا عند مسألتين: الأولى: أنّ الحقّ الأدبي لصاحب العمل يبقى للمُبتكر الأصلي على كل الأحوال. فلا يجوز لأحد أن يأخذ هذا العمل و ينتحله أو أن يدّعيه كلّيًا أو جزئيًا لنفسه. و الثّانية: أنّ لصاحب العمل و لغيره الإفادة المادية من العمل كأن يطلب أتعابًا أو يتقاضى أجرًا عن تحسينه أو تطويره أو أجرًا عن تدريسه و هكذا. أمّا ما وراء ذلك فلا يحقّ له ادعاء ملكيته للفكرة أو العمل في صورته المعنوية و لا يحقّ له منع الآخرين من إعادة نشرها و من الاستفادة منها. و هذا لا يتناقض مع كون العمل موقوفًا لأنّ الموقوف هو أصل العمل الفكري بصورته المعنوية و ليس الوسيط أو الخدمة 2). تعريفات تكون التعريفات هنا هي المقصودة عند استخدامها في الرّخصة: العمل الفكري (أو اختصارًا العمل): هو أي عمل فكري نافع غير مادي و لا ملموس و يمكن لمن يتلقاه عمل نسخ منه و نقله إلى آخرين دون أي عبء على من قام بإيصال النّسخة إليه ، و هو الموقوف. صاحب العمل: هو الشخص المُبتكِر أو الجهة التي قامت بتطوير و توفير العمل الفكري (و التي تملك حقوق النّسخ و النّشر و التّوزيع كلًّا أو بعضًا عند الجهات الرّسمية إن لزم الأمر)، و هو الواقف ويجب أن يكون مالكًا للأهلية التي تخوّله الإقرار لحظة النّشر. المنتفع (المستخدِم): هو الشّخص أو الجهة التي ترغب بالانتفاع من العمل الفكري، و هو الموقوف عليه. رخصة الاستخدام (أو اختصارًا الرّخصة): هي هذا العقد الذي بين يديك وهو عقد بين صاحب العمل والمنتفع يحقّ للمنتفع بموجبه و ضمن شروطه الاستفادة و الانتفاع من العمل. و نظرًا لتوفر العمل بشكل مفتوح للجميع فإن قيام المنتفع بالاستفادة من العمل الفكري يعني بالضرورة إقراره و موافقته على كافة شروط الرّخصة. فإذا لم يكن المنتفع موافقًا على الرّخصة تسحب منه الحقوق الممنوحة بموجبها و يصبح أي انتفاع بالعمل غير مشروع و يعرّض نفسه للمقاضاة. بنود الرّخصة رخصة وقف العامة، يرمز لها اختصارًا بـ “وقف”، هي رخصة لتوزيع العمل الفكري (من برمجيات أو مؤلفات مكتوبة أو إنتاج فني على سبيل المثال لا الحصر). تتشابه هذه الرخصة في أهدافها مع رخص البرمجيات الحرة والتّوثيق الحر و رخصة الإنتاج المشترك. ولكنّها تزيد عليها ببعض الجوانب المتعلقة بالهدف من وراء الإنتاج و حدود الاستخدام. رخصة وقف و كما يقترح الاسم هي
