On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:15:28 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that > > is DFSG-free. > > Here's the text, taken from http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
And here's my comments.
>
>
>
> Free Art License
>
>
> [ Copyleft Attitude ]
>
> version 1.2
>
> Preamble :
[...]
> 2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)
[...]
> - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the
> originals (original and subsequent).
I'm a little concerned that this could mean that, in order to distribute
a work under this license, I forever required to keep updated
information on where recipients can access every previous version.
What if the original changes, say, URL? Have I to keep track of where it
goes?
What if the original vanishes? Have I to keep a copy of the original and
make it available, in order to be able to distribute a subsequent work?
Both these requirements seem non-free.
[...]
> 3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK
>
> All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why
> you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and
> subsequents) into another work which would not be subject to this
> license.
This does not seem to be clearly drafted, IMHO.
[...]
> 6. VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE LICENCE
>
> This license may undergo periodic modifications to incorporate
> improvements by its authors (instigators of the "copyleft attitude"
> movement) by way of new, numbered versions.
>
> You will have the choice of accepting the provisions contained in the
> version under which the copy was communicated to you, or
> alternatively, to use the provisions of one of the subsequent
> versions.
Please notice that this is an auto-upgrade clause.
Not a freeness issue per se, but something to keep in mind anyway.
[...]
> 8. THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THIS CONTRACT
>
> This license is subject to French law.
Choice of law, which is not a problem.
In summary, this license seems to be *intended* to be a free copyleft
one (but incompatible with GPLv2). There are some issues though that
seem to make it fail.
It's not a license that I would recommend (even in absense of the the
issues with clause 2.2), because of its lack of clarity.
What do others think?
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpfiv1dybZHZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
