Francesco Poli <[email protected]> writes: > This might forbid anonymous works or anonymous modifications, > which is non-free, IMO.
Why so? >> specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either >> initial or subsequent). > > This condition is a little improved with respect to the >corresponding one in the Free Art License version 1.2. However, I >am still a little concerned that this could mean that, in order to >distribute a work under this license, I am required, as long as I go >on distributing, 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? I guess this caused by poor wording. I believe that the authors of the license meant that the distributor should disclose his source; but as you rightly point out, the entire license is very poorly drafted, and we an only take it to mean what it says, in plain language. OTOTH, if the URL was something like a dynamic page, (you access the original from a newspaper's site, and the site later moves the page to some 'archives' section) I am sure that this is a requirement impossible to comply with. Would not referring to the home page in such cirumstances be sufficient compliance? Like "Originals available from http;//www.foo.com" instead of "http://www.foo.com/20090101/articles/local/duh/blabla.html";? > [...] >> 2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY > [...] >> distribute the subsequent work under the same license or any >> compatible license. > > This condition appears to be poorly drafted, since it could be > interpreted to mandate distribution as a requirement to get the > permission to modify. While I agree that the license would do with some better wording everywhere, I am not sure I agree here. -- Mahesh T. Pai || http://paivakil.blogspot.com Man's most judicious trait, is a good sense of what not to believe. --Euripides -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
