Re: Free Art License
Mathieu Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] The already a discution[1] which was opened about this license, but I didn't find if this license is DFSG complient. I have reviewed the discussion of http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00132.html In my opinion, this license: + permits free redistribution (DFSG 1), * MIGHT include source code (DFSG 2), + permits derived works (DFSG 3), + acceptably protects integrity of the author's source (DFSG 4), * MIGHT discriminate against people (DFSG 5), + doesn't discriminate against fields of endeavour (DFSG 6), + allows distribution of licence (DFSG 7), + is not specific to debian (DFSG 8), + doesn't contaminate other software (DFSG 9), and I think it's GPL-incompatible due to section 5 and generally poorly-worded (in English, at least) with several lawyerbombs. I think it's impractical for debian, as section 2.2 might mean that the originals have to be hosted forever. Section 2.2 also forbids anonymous contributions, which might be a problem. I would suggest using the GPLv2+ instead, but software under this license might follow the DFSG. Which packages or potential packages are covered? Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
Francesco Poli escribe: As I previously stated (in this same thread), my personal opinion on CC-v3.0 licenses is that they fail to meet the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though. Maybe a big part of the problem is that licenses which are ok for documentation or software works are not ok for artistic works and vice versa. I'd find surprising that only artistic works released in the public domain were DFSG compliant enough to be released with Debian. Cordially, Ismael -- Ismael Valladolid Torres m. +34679156321 La media hostia j. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lamediahostia.blogspot.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:41:12 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote: Francesco Poli escribe: As I previously stated (in this same thread), my personal opinion on CC-v3.0 licenses is that they fail to meet the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though. Maybe a big part of the problem is that licenses which are ok for documentation or software works are not ok for artistic works and vice versa. The problem is that the licenses that are palatable to many artists fail to meet the DFSG. But, there's nothing new with that: the licenses that are palatable to many programmers and software house CEOs also fail to meet the DFSG (who said Microsoft EULA?). I'd find surprising that only artistic works released in the public domain were DFSG compliant enough to be released with Debian. That's not the case: as has already been stated, works released under the terms of good licenses do comply with the DFSG (for instance: GNU GPL v2, Expat/MIT, X11/MIT, 2-clause BSD, 3-clause BSD, ...). P.S.: Please do not reply to me, Cc:ing the list, as I didn't asked you to do so. I am a debian-legal subscriber and would rather avoid receiving the same message twice. Reply to the list only (as long as you want to send a public response). See http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpxSgXQaJAdo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:35:57 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote: [...] That includes the amended revocation and attribution clauses that Francesco is concerned with; we thought they were sufficiently softened that they were not an effective prevention of licensors exercising their freedom. A softened non-free restriction is just that: a softened issue, not a vanished one. I repeatedly expressed my concerns, but I haven't yet seen any convincing rebuttal. In addition to that, there's the well-known anti-TPM clause, the actual meaning of which is not clear to me at all (even Creative Commons official representatives refuse to disclose their interpretation of the clause![1]). [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/09/msg00155.html -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp0NRaazA7T8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:21:34 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] [...] I also believe that a large number of debian-legal participants have said that the DRM clause, as it stands, is free enough to allow distribution under DRM if such DRM is not effective [...] I'm now sufficiently confused by CC/DRM/DReaM and others that I would advise everyone to run away, run away from that lawyerbomb. I seem to remember that RMS also advised people to avoid promoting CC until they sort out what the devil they stand for. Until we see a few of the anti-TPM zealots try to use CC to punish parallel distribution, we probably won't know what the current licence means in practical terms. Agreed fully. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpD7VJ52HMX8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 08:34:30 +0100, Mathieu Stumpf wrote: Great, there are 996 songs under CC-by (2.0+2.5) if I just look at dogmazic.net. CC-* before 3.0 are non-free, CC-by 3.0 is probably ok, IIRC. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
Julien Cristau escribe: CC-* before 3.0 are non-free Why exactly!? pgpQT25CqkVgT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 13:41:35 +0100, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote: Julien Cristau escribe: CC-* before 3.0 are non-free Why exactly!? See http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary (this is about 2.0, but I think the same problems apply to 2.5). Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
Well, all that is great, but what should I understand with all that, is there no license under which I can find songs that debian would accept in the main repository? Please make a short and clear answer. :)
Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] My opinion is based on the contribution of debian-legal participants, of the workgroup participants, and of my own review of the licenses. I don't doubt that. However, that's still your opinion rather than the Workgroup's. I don't mean anything bad by that. Just a correction to what was written. [...] I also believe that a large number of debian-legal participants have said that the DRM clause, as it stands, is free enough to allow distribution under DRM if such DRM is not effective [...] I'm now sufficiently confused by CC/DRM/DReaM and others that I would advise everyone to run away, run away from that lawyerbomb. I seem to remember that RMS also advised people to avoid promoting CC until they sort out what the devil they stand for. Until we see a few of the anti-TPM zealots try to use CC to punish parallel distribution, we probably won't know what the current licence means in practical terms. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
Mathieu Stumpf escribe: Well, all that is great, but what should I understand with all that, is there no license under which I can find songs that debian would accept in the main repository? AFAIK CC-by would allow it. Please make a short and clear answer. :) Hopefully mine is. :) NonCommercial clauses in CC licenses is kind of a cancer, in many cases they pose more restrictions than mere copyright. This article explains it nicely. 1. http://www.freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC Cordially, Ismael -- Ismael Valladolid Torres m. +34679156321 La media hostia j. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lamediahostia.blogspot.com/ pgpTfUNPli3g1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
Great, there are 996 songs under CC-by (2.0+2.5) if I just look at dogmazic.net. Thank you, that's a clear answer. Now I can go ahead! :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or archive maintainer, if you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. [...] I think [3]'s the opinion of the Workgroup leader. The Workgroup's last opinion was http://people.debian.org/~evan/draftresponse.txt [...] Similarly, while MJ Ray argues [5] that packages under the Open Font License making their way into main is proof of incompetence and/or oversight on the ftp-masters' part, Misjudgements of a fairly vague twisty licence from ftp-masters, maintainers, debian-legal contributors and more. By the way, the quoted ftp-master/DPL also claims[6] 'The DFSG refers to copyright licensing' when it clearly doesn't refer to it even once. So is there the possibility of ftp-master misreading a licence? [6] - http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/02/msg00027.html is it not possible that they simply disagree with debian-legal's analysis and decided to let the packages in on that basis, just as they did in the case of Sun's Java licensing? Sun's Java is not yet in main and IIRC debian-legal wasn't asked before that same DPL fast-tracked it into non-free. The response of some was 'on your heads be it' because it was done by a few clearly-identified people and it's not part of debian. Otherwise, good summary. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On Tue, 2007-06-03 at 10:06 +, MJ Ray wrote: In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or archive maintainer, if you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. [...] I think [3]'s the opinion of the Workgroup leader. My opinion is based on the contribution of debian-legal participants, of the workgroup participants, and of my own review of the licenses. I believe that the Workgroup, including yourself, considered the license draft that included the explicit parallel distribution proviso to be compatible with the DFSG. That includes the amended revocation and attribution clauses that Francesco is concerned with; we thought they were sufficiently softened that they were not an effective prevention of licensors exercising their freedom. I think the loss of that explicit parallel distribution proviso was regrettable, but I also believe that a large number of debian-legal participants have said that the DRM clause, as it stands, is free enough to allow distribution under DRM if such DRM is not effective -- that is, if steps are taken to preserve downstream users' freedom. Most considered it to be open to parallel distribution, even without an explicit proviso. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 00:32:44 + Andrew Saunders wrote: On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though. You didn't find any final answer because the thread didn't reach a clear consensus (and possibily is not even over, just in pause for a while...). The final answer on this sort of issue isn't arrived at through discussion on -legal at all. To quote an ftp-master: the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license is suitable for distribution [...] isn't based on who shouts the loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive maintainers. [1] You cut an important part: Anthony Towns was speaking about distributability (suitability for the non-free archive), not about DFSG-compliance (suitability for the main archive). The full quote is: | the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license | is suitable for distribution in non-free isn't based on who shouts the | loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive | maintainers. He may hold a similar opinion about DFSG-compliance, but he was not talking about it in the particular message you quoted. Indeed debian-legal is a sort of advisory committee, and the final decision is up to the ftp-masters, but when an opinion is asked to debian-legal (this is how this thread started), well, an opinion from debian-legal is provided. This should not be surprising: if Mathieu wanted to get the ftp-masters' opinion, he could have asked them... In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or archive maintainer, if you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. The two messages/essays you cite were written at the time of the first CC-v3.0 public draft: hence they talk about drafts, rather than about the final texts. Moreover there was the anti-DRM issue, which is still there, and Evan Prodromou acknowledged in the essay that the conclusion was yet to be drawn. The Workgroup's conclusion appears to hinge on whether one chooses to interpret the GFDL GR [4] as a precedent rather than an exemption, but I suspect that in the absence of another GR, it's the ftp-masters that'll be getting to choose. The essay[3] you cite states: | Whether this is an exception, or applicable to all licenses, is a | subject to some debate for Debian members. Debian members != ftp-masters Anyway I don't how the GFDL GR could be interpreted as applicable to all licenses, as it specifically talks about the GFDL and no other license... Similarly, while MJ Ray argues [5] that packages under the Open Font License making their way into main is proof of incompetence and/or oversight on the ftp-masters' part, is it not possible that they simply disagree with debian-legal's analysis and decided to let the packages in on that basis, just as they did in the case of Sun's Java licensing? It's possible, but an explanation from the ftp-masters would be appreciated: we, debian-legal regulars, spend quite some time in reviewing licenses; I would like to know when and why ftp-masters decide to ignore our conclusions... As ever, the above is only my personal opinion and I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong when presented with appropriate evidence. Feel free to smash my thought experiment to bits as best as you are able. :-) [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00129.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/08/msg00015.html [3] http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report [4] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 [5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg1.html -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpodTn3WZKLP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:42:49 +0100 Mathieu Stumpf wrote: Okay, I'm planning to make some maps for stepmanie[1], but I would like to map songs that will have no legal problem to be include in Debian. I really appreciate that you thought about this aspect *before* doing all the work (that is to say, before it's too late...). So I red some threads but I didn't find any final answer, are CC 3.0[2] (and which one?) and free art license okay with the DFSG[3]? Regards etc. [1] http://www.stepmania.com/ [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00059.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00131.html As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though. You didn't find any final answer because the thread didn't reach a clear consensus (and possibily is not even over, just in pause for a while...). Please note that there's another thread[4] which slipped to debian-legal from the cc-licenses mailing list. [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00063.html Also note that both threads continue on the next month (which is, BTW, *this* month!). As far as the Free Art License is concerned, my opinion is: * it does not meet the DFSG * it'a poorly drafted license * it seems to be primarily designed for material works of art (statues, physical paintings, ...), rather than for non-material ones (i.e.: digital works) If I recall correctly, little consensus was reached last time we discussed this license on debian-legal[5][6]. [5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00257.html [6] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg3.html HTH. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgptitlxcR7N7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though. You didn't find any final answer because the thread didn't reach a clear consensus (and possibily is not even over, just in pause for a while...). The final answer on this sort of issue isn't arrived at through discussion on -legal at all. To quote an ftp-master: the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license is suitable for distribution [...] isn't based on who shouts the loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive maintainers. [1] In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or archive maintainer, if you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. The Workgroup's conclusion appears to hinge on whether one chooses to interpret the GFDL GR [4] as a precedent rather than an exemption, but I suspect that in the absence of another GR, it's the ftp-masters that'll be getting to choose. Similarly, while MJ Ray argues [5] that packages under the Open Font License making their way into main is proof of incompetence and/or oversight on the ftp-masters' part, is it not possible that they simply disagree with debian-legal's analysis and decided to let the packages in on that basis, just as they did in the case of Sun's Java licensing? As ever, the above is only my personal opinion and I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong when presented with appropriate evidence. Feel free to smash my thought experiment to bits as best as you are able. :-) [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00129.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/08/msg00015.html [3] http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report [4] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 [5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg1.html Cheers, -- Andrew Saunders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free Art License
Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:18:32 -0400 Nathanael Nerode 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. I believe that it is. If you do, could you please reply to my analysis with an actual rebuttal? OK. This license *has* to be read in the context of physical artwork. For an all-digital artwork, it has lots of redundant, unnecessary clauses. Suppose the Mona Lisa were licensed under this license; I will give examples using it as I go through your comments. You wrote earlier: - 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. Not quite. Remember what originals means in the context of this license: it means a single copy, normally of a physical artwork. It *does* mean you would be forever required to keep updated information on where recipients can access the original artwork. (For the Mona Lisa, the answer would be The Louvre.) The freeness of this is arguable. I think it's supposed to be primarily a form of attribution or credit, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. However, it may be overbroad. Convince me. Perhaps keeping track of the movements of the Mona Lisa as it's sold to different museums *is* unreasonable. What if the original changes, say, URL? Have I to keep track of where it goes? This is literally impossible. The original is a single copy, not a work. If it changes URL, you are most likely looking at a different copy. :-) What if the original vanishes? Now, *this* is a problem. Since the original is a single copy, the vanishing of that copy is a big issue. I believe, however, that The original has been destroyed; nobody at all can access it anywhere should be sufficient to satisfy this clause. This should be drafted better to clarify this issue. This is a freeness issue indeed, if such a clause is not sufficient. This is, again, clearly intended for physical artwork. I'm not entirely sure *how* to apply it to artwork which originated in digital form. I believe the only logical interpretation of the license is that an all-digital work might have *no* original at all in the sense of the license. Recall the definition of The Original: - The Original (the work's source or resource) : A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of its program which the originator provides as the reference for all future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions. (Incidentally, I have no idea what of its partition means here. Its program seems designed to refer to dance or theatre works.) The originator might not provide such a dated example. If the originator does not provide such a dated example, then there is no original. Rendering the license very confusing in that case, which is why this license should not be used for digital works. I believe it can still be understood, but all the clauses about the original become moot if the originator does not provide such a dated example. Have I to keep a copy of the original and make it available, in order to be able to distribute a subsequent work? Stop thinking about copies. :-) Copies are no good regarding the original. 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. This is clearly drafted, but you have to remember that originals refer to specific physical instances. You may not integrate the Mona Lisa into another work which is not subject to this license. You can do whatever you like with *copies* of the Mona Lisa; that's not what this clause is about, it's about the originals. Please notice that this is an auto-upgrade clause. Not a freeness issue per se, but something to keep in mind anyway. Yes, something to keep in mind. The point to remember about this license is that it is specifically designed for physical works which have a unique physical original; as long as you remember that when reading the word original, it makes sense. If you don't notice that, the license won't make any sense. It is still somewhat fuzzily written, but I think none of the points are actually freeness issues. For instance, section 2.2 says The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the copies. I don't really see how to broadcast the original Mona Lisa; even if I wanted to, I could only broadcast copies! But I guess the author can give me
Re: Free Art License
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It *does* mean you would be forever required to keep updated information on where recipients can access the original artwork. (For the Mona Lisa, the answer would be The Louvre.) The freeness of this is arguable. I think it's supposed to be primarily a form of attribution or credit, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. However, it may be overbroad. Convince me. Perhaps keeping track of the movements of the Mona Lisa as it's sold to different museums *is* unreasonable. Especially since it could be stolen. On the other hand, it is important for a free piece of physical artwork that it be publically accessible; the one who has power over the license (the Louvre, I guess) would also have to make sure that, when it is sold, it will not end up in a private house. - The Original (the work's source or resource) : A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of its program which the originator provides as the reference for all future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions. (Incidentally, I have no idea what of its partition means here. Its program seems designed to refer to dance or theatre works.) I've seen partition used in a cover text of a music CD, it seems to refer to the score of music for the orchestra. It might be a false-friend like translation, in german a music score for many instruments is called partitur. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free Art License
On Thu, 4 May 2006 02:09:51 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:18:32 -0400 Nathanael Nerode 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. I believe that it is. If you do, could you please reply to my analysis with an actual rebuttal? OK. This license *has* to be read in the context of physical artwork. For an all-digital artwork, it has lots of redundant, unnecessary clauses. Maybe, but I don't think it's clearly stated... At least, the FSF does not mention this caveat in its license list: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses Anyway, let's assume it's for physical works of authorship only (if this is true, we are quickly going off-topic here, since Debian users cannot aptitude install physical objects...). Suppose the Mona Lisa were licensed under this license; I will give examples using it as I go through your comments. Oh my goodness... We are lucky that copyright did not exist when Leonardo Da Vinci was alive! ;-) You wrote earlier: - 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. Not quite. Remember what originals means in the context of this license: it means a single copy, normally of a physical artwork. It *does* mean you would be forever required to keep updated information on where recipients can access the original artwork. (For the Mona Lisa, the answer would be The Louvre.) For a less famous work it would be harder to tell! The freeness of this is arguable. I think it's supposed to be primarily a form of attribution or credit, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It would be if it stated something along the lines of: | - specify to the recipient where *you were* able to access the | originals (original and subsequent). It instead forces me to track down any movement of the original work. However, it may be overbroad. Convince me. Perhaps keeping track of the movements of the Mona Lisa as it's sold to different museums *is* unreasonable. That is exactly what I'm concerned of: since it says specify to the recipient where *he will be* able to access the originals, it's the future it's talking about. It could even be unsatisfiable, strictly speaking, because I cannot specify *today* where the recipient will be able to access the originals *in the future*. But even ignoring that, it seems that I'm at least required to update this datum everytime I distribute, interpret or represent the work... I'm not a detective, how can I be forced to keep track of where every original work I want to distribute (a copy of) goes? What if the original changes, say, URL? Have I to keep track of where it goes? This is literally impossible. The original is a single copy, not a work. If it changes URL, you are most likely looking at a different copy. :-) OK, forget about the URL: s/URL/museum/ What if the original vanishes? Now, *this* is a problem. Since the original is a single copy, the vanishing of that copy is a big issue. I believe, however, that The original has been destroyed; nobody at all can access it anywhere should be sufficient to satisfy this clause. This should be drafted better to clarify this issue. This is a freeness issue indeed, if such a clause is not sufficient. I'm not sure that such a statement would be considered enough to go away with the destroyed original case... So, indeed, I think this is another problem. This is, again, clearly intended for physical artwork. I'm not entirely sure *how* to apply it to artwork which originated in digital form. I believe the only logical interpretation of the license is that an all-digital work might have *no* original at all in the sense of the license. Recall the definition of The Original: - The Original (the work's source or resource) : A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of its program which the originator provides as the reference for all future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions. I think it can make sense for non-material works too. (Incidentally, I have no idea what of its partition means here. Its program seems designed to refer to dance or theatre works.) I think it's talking about a musical score (in italian: partitura; probably similar in french, I don't know). [...] Have I to keep a copy of the original and make it available, in order to be able to distribute a subsequent work? Stop thinking about copies. :-) Copies are no good regarding the original. OK. 3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK All the
Re: Free Art License
On Thu, 04 May 2006 09:08:24 +0200 Frank Küster wrote: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It *does* mean you would be forever required to keep updated information on where recipients can access the original artwork. (For the Mona Lisa, the answer would be The Louvre.) The freeness of this is arguable. I think it's supposed to be primarily a form of attribution or credit, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. However, it may be overbroad. Convince me. Perhaps keeping track of the movements of the Mona Lisa as it's sold to different museums *is* unreasonable. Especially since it could be stolen. Indeed. Am I required to catch the thieves before I can distribute copies again?!? :-| On the other hand, it is important for a free piece of physical artwork that it be publically accessible; the one who has power over the license (the Louvre, I guess) would also have to make sure that, when it is sold, it will not end up in a private house. The licensor is not bound by the license. The licensee is. If the original ends up in a private house, I, as a licensee, am not anymore able to specify where the recipient will be able to access the original, since he/she could be unable to access it... Another problem. -- :-( 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 pgpzIG2NcbGxI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free Art License
On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:18:32 -0400 Nathanael Nerode 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. I believe that it is. If you do, could you please reply to my analysis with an actual rebuttal? I would be much happier, should I find out that a license, which is claimed to be Free by the FSF, is *actually* Free: such an event has become unusual in these strange days, unfortunately... :-((( -- :-( 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 pgpCLzQmk4L6x.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free Art License [was: Re: [Fwd: Re: gnome-themes and licensing]]
Le vendredi 28 avril 2006 à 10:33 +1000, Andrew Donnellan a écrit : Section 8 - French law - seems to make it non-free by DFSG standards. We've never considered choice of law as non-free. Such clauses are considered moot in most juridictions anyway. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Free Art License
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
Re: Free Art License [was: Re: [Fwd: Re: gnome-themes and licensing]]
Section 8 - French law - seems to make it non-free by DFSG standards. FSF lists it as a free documentation license soon after the GFDL. Other than section 8, it seems a simple, GPL-incompatible (due to section 3), copyleft license. andrew On 4/28/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/ Free Art License [ Copyleft Attitude ] version 1.2 Preamble : With this Free Art License, you are authorised to copy, distribute and freely transform the work of art while respecting the rights of the originator. Far from ignoring the author's rights, this license recognises them and protects them. It reformulates their principle while making it possible for the public to make creative use of the works of art. Whereas current literary and artistic property rights result in restriction of the public's access to works of art, the goal of the Free Art License is to encourage such access. The intention is to make work accessible and to authorise the use of its resources by the greatest number of people: to use it in order to increase its use, to create new conditions for creation in order to multiply the possibilities of creation, while respecting the originators in according them recognition and defending their moral rights. In fact, with the arrival of the digital age, the invention of the Internet and free software, a new approach to creation and production has made its appearance. It also encourages a continuation of the process of experimentation undertaken by many contemporary artists. Knowledge and creativity are resources which, to be true to themselves, must remain free, i.e. remain a fundamental search which is not directly related to a concrete application. Creating means discovering the unknown, means inventing a reality without any heed to realism. Thus, the object(ive) of art is not equivalent to the finished and defined art object. This is the basic aim of this Free Art License: to promote and protect artistic practice freed from the rules of the market economy. --- DEFINITIONS - The work of art : A communal work which includes the initial artwork as well as all subsequent contributions (subsequent originals and copies). It is created at the initiative of the original artist who, by this license, defines the conditions according to which the contributions are made. - The original work of art : This is the artwork created by the initiator of the communal work, of which copies will be modified by whosoever wishes. - Subsequent works : These are the additions put forward by the artists who contribute to the formation of the work by taking advantage of the right to reproduction, distribution and modification that this license confers on them. - The Original (the work's source or resource) : A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of its program which the originator provides as the reference for all future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions. - Copy : Any reproduction of an original as defined by this license. - The author or the artist of the original work of art: This is the person who created the work which is at the heart of the ramifications of this modified work of art. By this license, the author determines the conditions under which these modifications are made. - Contributor: Any person who contributes to the creation of the work of art. He is the author or the artist of an original art object resulting from the modification of a copy of the initial artwork or the modification of a copy of a subsequent work of art. --- 1. AIMS The aim of this license is to define the conditions according to which you can use this work freely. 2. EXTENT OF THE USAGE This work of art is subject to copyright, and the author, by this license, specifies the extent to which you can copy, distribute and modify it. 2.1 FREEDOM TO COPY (OR OF REPRODUCTION) You have the right to copy this work of art for your personal use, for your friends or for any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose. 2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION) You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions: - attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found, - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals, - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the
Re: Definitions of object code [Re: Free Art License]
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:28:39AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 21:25, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:24:46PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: I've a number of documents that say References to object code and executables in the GNU GPL are to be interpreted as the output of any document formatting or typesetting system, including intermediate and printed output. Some of them I've written, but I borrowed the wording from something else (I suspect in Debian), and I've encouraged people to use this phrasing many times since. What if I take a man page, output it as plain text, and use that as source, modifying it, maintaining it, etc. and discarding the original manpage? The GPL lets me do that; this interpretation does not. Okay. I think you are alone in this opinion, but that's just based on the fact no one's ever expressed a problem with this before. I haven't thought much about such a case, but my (tentative) position is that such a use would not be allowed by the GPL even without this statement. In particular the GPL talks about needing to do things to files, and the need for the source to be machine-readable. Your source-on-paper, even if it is the preferred form of modification, is neither a file nor machine readable, so you can't meet the terms of the GPL anyway. Plain text meant manpage.txt, a file output from the document formatting system nroff[1], and then edited to create API Documentation.txt. If I was forking documentation, and it was written as a manpage, that's probably the first thing I'd do: convert it into a format that won't give me a tumor. That output becomes my new source. I believe the GPL clearly allows this. The text file is my preferred form for modification. [1] or groff or cough or whatever, I can never keep them straight -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Free Art License
On 2004-10-01 01:16:29 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I consider the preferred form for modifying this program which is exactly the form of my examples: I consider C code to be the preferred form for modifying this program [...] I think you should look again at your own emails and possibly the thread generating this. It is not exactly the form and I don't think your reasoning holds for it. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
Re: Free Art License
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:28:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-10-01 01:16:29 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I consider the preferred form for modifying this program which is exactly the form of my examples: I consider C code to be the preferred form for modifying this program [...] I think you should look again at your own emails and possibly the thread generating this. It is not exactly the form and I don't think your reasoning holds for it. This subthread is about the preferred form for modification is for (digital) media--eg. movies, images, sounds. You suggested specifying it, but saying the preferred form for modifying this sound is is the MIDI data is problematic. If that's not the type of specification you had in mind, give an example of one you did. (Calling me obtuse is not a substitute for making yourself clear, so please skip the name-calling and just supply the example.) If you think that we're talking about physical media--paintings--then you should reread Kai Blin's message. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Free Art License
On 2004-09-30 04:27:05 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be for a piece of media. [...] So specify it. That's a very bad idea; it'd merely be *his* preferred form, and the GPL doesn't say the original author's preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. Why is it a bad idea for the copyright holders to say I consider the preferred form for modifying this program in doubt? They are the ones who will be trying to enforce the licence. Far from being irrelevant, it's a useful hint for licensees that could help clear things up. Of course, if the work has ben transformed the work in some fundamental way, the original copyright holders' opinion will be less relevant. The rest of your message dealt with the case the preferred form for modifying this program is the C code, which I think is stronger, different and not what I meant. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
Re: Free Art License
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:10:01AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-09-30 04:27:05 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be for a piece of media. [...] So specify it. That's a very bad idea; it'd merely be *his* preferred form, and the GPL doesn't say the original author's preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. Why is it a bad idea for the copyright holders to say I consider the preferred form for modifying this program in doubt? They are the ones who will be trying to enforce the licence. Far from being irrelevant, it's a useful hint for licensees that could help clear things up. Of course, if the work has ben transformed the work in some fundamental way, the original copyright holders' opinion will be less relevant. The rest of your message dealt with the case the preferred form for modifying this program is the C code, which I think is stronger, different and not what I meant. If so, then I have no idea what you meant; please be more specific (ie. give an example). This is an example of a misguided specification of preferred form for modifying this program that is likely to result from your suggestion. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Free Art License
On 2004-10-01 00:37:18 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If so, then I have no idea what you meant; please be more specific (ie. give an example). [...] I gave an example in my previous email and you quoted it. I think either you are being obtuse, or we cannot communicate about this. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
Re: Free Art License
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:09:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-10-01 00:37:18 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If so, then I have no idea what you meant; please be more specific (ie. give an example). [...] I gave an example in my previous email and you quoted it. I think either you are being obtuse, or we cannot communicate about this. If you gave an example, it was I consider the preferred form for modifying this program which is exactly the form of my examples: I consider C code to be the preferred form for modifying this program, I consider MIDI to be the preferred form for modifying this music, I consider PSD to be the preferred form for modifying this image. All of these are extremely confused things to be attaching to a work under the GPL, and all of these are what people are likely to do based on your so specify it suggestion. You said that's not what you meant, though, so I have no idea what you did mean. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Free Art License
On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 22:27, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: The source is defined as The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be for a piece of media. [...] So specify it. That's a very bad idea; it'd merely be *his* preferred form, and the GPL doesn't say the original author's preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. It's not acceptable to say the preferred form for modifying this program is the C code, and likewise it's not acceptable to say the preferred form for modifying this audio clip is the MIDI data or for modifying this image is the PSD, for pretty much the same reasons. The GPL allows me to take the program/audio/image and treat any form as source, as long as it really is my preferred form for modification. I can distribute assembly code as source, even if I received it as C code, if I really did compile it to assembly and then made my modifications to the assembly. People should not be trying to attach a specific this is the preferred form, since it raises questions about what they really mean--if they're saying that others must always use that source form, it's not the GPL anymore, and DFSG-unfree as it limits modification; if they're merely saying what their own source is, it's irrelevant. How do you feel about specifying what is *not* the preferred form of modification (object code, in GPL parlance)? I've a number of documents that say References to object code and executables in the GNU GPL are to be interpreted as the output of any document formatting or typesetting system, including intermediate and printed output. Some of them I've written, but I borrowed the wording from something else (I suspect in Debian), and I've encouraged people to use this phrasing many times since. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free Art License
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:24:46PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: How do you feel about specifying what is *not* the preferred form of modification (object code, in GPL parlance)? It's likely to cause problems, too. I've a number of documents that say References to object code and executables in the GNU GPL are to be interpreted as the output of any document formatting or typesetting system, including intermediate and printed output. Some of them I've written, but I borrowed the wording from something else (I suspect in Debian), and I've encouraged people to use this phrasing many times since. What if I take a man page, output it as plain text, and use that as source, modifying it, maintaining it, etc. and discarding the original manpage? The GPL lets me do that; this interpretation does not. This interpretation doesn't follow from the GPL (which makes me cringe, remembering the times where people have tried to change the meaning of licenses by interpretating them). It's non-free, in my opinion, since it prohibits the the above. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Free Art License
On 2004-09-12 13:53:35 +0100 Kai Blin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The source is defined as The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be for a piece of media. [...] So specify it. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
Re: Free Art License
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: The source is defined as The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be for a piece of media. [...] So specify it. That's a very bad idea; it'd merely be *his* preferred form, and the GPL doesn't say the original author's preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. It's not acceptable to say the preferred form for modifying this program is the C code, and likewise it's not acceptable to say the preferred form for modifying this audio clip is the MIDI data or for modifying this image is the PSD, for pretty much the same reasons. The GPL allows me to take the program/audio/image and treat any form as source, as long as it really is my preferred form for modification. I can distribute assembly code as source, even if I received it as C code, if I really did compile it to assembly and then made my modifications to the assembly. People should not be trying to attach a specific this is the preferred form, since it raises questions about what they really mean--if they're saying that others must always use that source form, it's not the GPL anymore, and DFSG-unfree as it limits modification; if they're merely saying what their own source is, it's irrelevant. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Free Art License
First, anyone analyzing this license should note that many of the odder-sounding provisions in this license are related to physical artworks (Originals) where modification may actually change the original. It appears that the right to copy, create modified copies, and distribute copies (modified or unmodified) is granted with very few limitations. Exceptions are in 2.2. 2.2 Freedom to Distribute, to Interpret (or of Representation) You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions: - attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found, - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals, Impossible for anonymous authors. - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the copies. Dammit. This may become impossible if the originals are destroyed or lost. It also appears to amount to You must list the locations of all previous versions, which could get extremely tedious. This therefore seems to be an unacceptable, non-free restriction. It should be fixable, though; it's probably just thoughtlessness on the part of the license authors. :-) 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. Um. Normally we don't put that *IN* the license. I think it doesn't render it non-free though. -- This space intentionally left blank.
Re: Free Art License
Josh Triplett wrote: 7. Sub-licensing Sub-licenses are not authorized by the present license. Any person who wishes to make use of the rights that it confers will be directly bound to the author of the original work. This is the oddity referred to above. First of all, based on the language in clause 2.2, originals (original and subsequent), it is possible that each new modified version is considered both a modified version of its predecessors (subsequent to their licenses), and an original work of its own (with a license from the modifier). If so, and if this clause is simply stating that modified versions are subject to the original author's license, that's fine. I believe this is exactly what it is saying. If you know someone who knows legal French, they can check. I see no point in going into further detail when reading a translation. -- This space intentionally left blank.
Re: Free Art License
Ingo Ruhnke wrote: I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I only have the 'binary', I don't have any 'source' information that would allow me to modify the resulting work in any meaningfull way. I consider this more similar to somebody who is writing a programm in C, then compiling it and then losing the source code (diskcrash, rm, whatever). To my understanding the resulting binary is undistributable under the GPL. My understanding is that it is; there are some cases where people really do hack up binaries in hex editors routinely. Although probably someone would disassemble it, and then *that* would be the preferred form for modification. -- This space intentionally left blank.
Re: Free Art License
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:06:46PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals, Impossible for anonymous authors. I'm not so sure. Alternatively, there's no the name. I've a first name, middle name and family name. With initials, and permutations, that alone leads to a number of names. If I also had a married name, an informal name, a pen name, and so on, the possibilities would increase even further. Also, a name isn't a unique identifier, at least not in the general case. Anyways... is there some reason an anonymous author couldn't use pen names or the like for this license? -- Raul
Re: Free Art License
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 11:36:06PM +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote: (There's been a repeated conversation wrt. source distribution and the DFSG: what should Debian require for things like images, fonts and movie clips? There isn't a strong consensus, yet.) Why does Debian than distribute that stuff at all? We don't have much choice about distributing fonts and images, at least as long as we want X11 support.
Re: Free Art License
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 05:21:36PM +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote: I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I only have the 'binary', I don't have any 'source' information that would allow me to modify the resulting work in any meaningfull way. For a .png composed in the gimp, what would be the distinction between these two cases? Thanks, -- Raul
Re: Free Art License
* Ingo Ruhnke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [13/09/04, 17:21:36]: It depends on the specific case. In my opinion, almost all of those media types actually have a prefered form for modification. Depends, I have hardly seen any .xcf, .blend or source formats for .ogg/.mp3 in the wild, in this context basically all games fail to fullfill the GPL. It just has to be available, and that's just what we have in WorldForge, as I pointed out in other places before. GPL doesn't force us to put the source into the in-game media tarball. Cheers, Kai -- Kai Blin aka. nowhere (blinatgmx.net), WorldForge Project Web: http://www.worldforge.org/ You have been selected for a secret mission. pgpLu4LKnrWGY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free Art License
Kai Blin wrote: * Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [12/09/04, 11:42:42]: Switching from the GPL to a GPL-incompatible license would probably cause major problems to any other GPL-compatible work that would like to reuse your work (in any way that creates a derivative work). Creating barriers across the free software world is not a good practice -- at least, not one I would recommend... I totally agree here, but for problems I'll address later GPL doesn't really cut it for artwork, at least a lot of people I'm talking to think so. Depending on the issue you have with the GPL, you might consider it acceptable to dual-license your work under both the GPL and the Free Art License (or any other license you want). If you do so, then your work will always be Free Software and DFSG-Free, even if the Free Art License or any other license you pick turns out not to be. This would also allow GPLed works derived from your work, which the Free Art License alone would not. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Free Art License
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:58:17 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Say something like a graphical image of a button that is basically text + a few filters to add a 3d effect and such. If I want to change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull way, so that it fits together with other buttons that ues the same style, I need to know the filters and parameters that where used in the process, however often that is something that not even the orignal author might remember after a few days. Won't the resulting work be undistributable under GPL due to the lack of source? No. What you have currently is (from what you have explained) the prefered form for modification. This is no different from code that is badly documented where the author has a stroke and is no longer able to explain his code. The prefered form for modification is still extant, and is being distributed. I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I only have the 'binary', I don't have any 'source' information that would allow me to modify the resulting work in any meaningfull way. I consider this more similar to somebody who is writing a programm in C, then compiling it and then losing the source code (diskcrash, rm, whatever). To my understanding the resulting binary is undistributable under the GPL. It depends on the specific case. In my opinion, almost all of those media types actually have a prefered form for modification. Depends, I have hardly seen any .xcf, .blend or source formats for .ogg/.mp3 in the wild, in this context basically all games fail to fullfill the GPL.
Re: Free Art License
The work of art: A communal work which includes the initial oeuvre as well as all m-w.com defines oeuvre (a word I'd never heard before...) as a substantial body of work constituting the lifework of a writer, an artist, or a composer. I don't think that's the right word. The Original (the work's source or resource): A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of its program which the originator provides as the reference for all future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions. wtf? This definition does not make sense. 2.1 Freedom to Copy (or of Reproduction) You have the right to copy this work of art for your personal use, for your friends or for any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose. A very wordy way of granting permission to copy. 2.2 Freedom to Distribute, to Interpret (or of Representation) You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions: - attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found, ok. - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals, ok. - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the copies. Questionable. It's not OK if this requires me to indefinitely host the original work. 2.3 Freedom to Modify You have the right to modify the copies of the originals (original and subsequent), partially or otherwise, respecting the conditions set out in article 2.2 , in the event of distribution (or representation) of the modified copy. The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to modify the original under the same conditions as the copies. This is confusing, but appears to grant permission to modify the work, at least in all cases we care about. I'm not sure what it means to only modify a copy (because I can't figure out the definition of original, above), but at least (as has been mentioned) with electronic works, copies are very easy to make. 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. which not not be subject to this license if ? This doesn't make sense. I suspect this is a translation error and that the intent is to say: You may integrate the originals into another work as long as the new work is available under this license. And, btw, what about copies? 4. Your Author's Rights The object of this license is not to deny your author's rights on your contribution. By choosing to contribute to the evolution of this work of art, you only agree to give to others the same rights with regard to your contribution as those which were granted to you by this license. Poor wording, but I suspect Josh's hunch of s/rights/permissions/ is what is intended. 7. Sub-licensing Sub-licenses are not authorized by the present license. Any person who wishes to make use of the rights that it confers will be directly bound to the author of the original work. I'm not sure what this is supposed to do. PS: Please get a better translation of this license.
Re: Free Art License
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:02:40 +0200 Kai Blin wrote: I wanted a review of the license as we're considering switching the package sear-media and another media package that'll follow when our DD finishes the package to this license, the GPL being a bit unclear when used for artwork. I would say please, don't do that. The Free Art License could even be judged DFSG-free (we don't know by now, as there is not yet a clear consensus...), but it doesn't seem to be a well worded license. And it's clearly a GPL-incompatible license (being a copyleft license that is not equivalent to the GNU GPL...). Switching from the GPL to a GPL-incompatible license would probably cause major problems to any other GPL-compatible work that would like to reuse your work (in any way that creates a derivative work). Creating barriers across the free software world is not a good practice -- at least, not one I would recommend... I would suggest sticking to the GNU GPL. I cannot see what is not clear with the GPL applied to artwork... -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune Francesco |Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes? | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape. pgpNPD4Oh7KvB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free Art License
* Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [12/09/04, 11:42:42]: Switching from the GPL to a GPL-incompatible license would probably cause major problems to any other GPL-compatible work that would like to reuse your work (in any way that creates a derivative work). Creating barriers across the free software world is not a good practice -- at least, not one I would recommend... I totally agree here, but for problems I'll address later GPL doesn't really cut it for artwork, at least a lot of people I'm talking to think so. I would suggest sticking to the GNU GPL. I cannot see what is not clear with the GPL applied to artwork... Well, Section 3 of the GPL allows you to copy and distribute the work if you also distribute the source (or make it accesible, or the like). The source is defined as The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be for a piece of media. For a picture composed of multiple layers, it's a version with all the layers intact and seperate, but often, in the process of working on a multi-layer image, the artist will combine a set of layers to save ram and speed up the processing. Is that image still a source? Now, movies get even more tricky. A short movie clip often requires hours of raw material. Does everyone who wants to distribute the movie need to have gigabytes and gigabytes of raw movie scenes available? I'll gladly be convinced that I'm misinterpreting the GPL here. If this thread is off-topic for this channel, please reply to me personally. Cheers, Kai -- Kai Blin aka. nowhere (blinatgmx.net), WorldForge Project Web: http://www.worldforge.org/ Let a fool hold his tongue and he will pass for a sage. -- Publilius Syrus
Re: Free Art License
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 02:53:35PM +0200, Kai Blin wrote: It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be for a piece of media. For a picture composed of multiple layers, it's a version with all the layers intact and seperate, but often, in the process of working on a multi-layer image, the artist will combine a set of layers to save ram and speed up the processing. Is that image still a source? Now, movies get even more tricky. A short movie clip often requires hours of raw material. Does everyone who wants to distribute the movie need to have gigabytes and gigabytes of raw movie scenes available? The source form, for the GPL, is usually clear when you look at an individual work (and don't try to generalize it to death): it's the form actually used to modify. For the first: if it's the form that would be used if the author wanted to modify the image further, yes. For the latter: probably not, but that isn't what determines whether it's source or not. I disagree that the GPL is unclear in the above cases. You may not necessarily want to require source for all media, though, regardless of whether source is clear. (There's been a repeated conversation wrt. source distribution and the DFSG: what should Debian require for things like images, fonts and movie clips? There isn't a strong consensus, yet.) I agree that this license is a poor choice, though. It's very unclear and poorly written/translated. -- Glenn Maynard
What if source is really big? [was: Re: Free Art License]
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:53:35 +0200 Kai Blin wrote: I would suggest sticking to the GNU GPL. I cannot see what is not clear with the GPL applied to artwork... Well, Section 3 of the GPL allows you to copy and distribute the work if you also distribute the source (or make it accesible, or the like). Yes, briefly speaking... The source is defined as The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. Definetely. It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be for a piece of media. I think the right question you should ask yourself is which form would I use, should I make some modifications to it?. Of course I assume that the person who asks himself/herself this question is reasonably skilled in the involved field (image manipulation or digital movie editing or computer programming or ...): for instance someone who doesn't understand C++ cannot claim that unobfuscated C++ is not the preferred form for making modifications to a program written in C++... OTOH, there are cases in which the preferred form for modifications changes over time: suppose the above program is manually translated from C++ into Python and further modified. At that point, the source code is in Python. For a picture composed of multiple layers, it's a version with all the layers intact and seperate, but often, in the process of working on a multi-layer image, the artist will combine a set of layers to save ram and speed up the processing. Is that image still a source? If I ask that artist to make some modifications to the new image, would he/she restart from the totally-separated-layer form or rather from the partially-flattened form? That is the test, IMHO. Now, movies get even more tricky. A short movie clip often requires hours of raw material. Does everyone who wants to distribute the movie need to have gigabytes and gigabytes of raw movie scenes available? That is indeed an issue. Is source still source when it grows beyond the imaginable? But that issue is not GPL-specific, IMHO. Are you really providing the freedoms that we value, without providing the preferred form for modification? I'll gladly be convinced that I'm misinterpreting the GPL here. If this thread is off-topic for this channel, please reply to me personally. There have already been some discussions about this issue on this list, so I think that it's not OT. -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune Francesco |Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes? | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape. pgpkVRpuXZlqh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: What if source is really big? [was: Re: Free Art License]
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is indeed an issue. Is source still source when it grows beyond the imaginable? But that issue is not GPL-specific, IMHO. Are you really providing the freedoms that we value, without providing the preferred form for modification? I think that we are providing the freedoms that we value if we provide a practical form for modification. The DFSG exist because we want to ensure that certain acts are possible. Source that allows those acts should be adequate, even if there potentially exists some better version of that source. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free Art License
For the first: if it's the form that would be used if the author wanted to modify the image further, yes. How about stuff that is 'one-way', ie. not modifiable at all in a usefull way with todays given file formats (.xcf). Say something like a graphical image of a button that is basically text + a few filters to add a 3d effect and such. If I want to change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull way, so that it fits together with other buttons that ues the same style, I need to know the filters and parameters that where used in the process, however often that is something that not even the orignal author might remember after a few days. Won't the resulting work be undistributable under GPL due to the lack of source? Does the author need to manually write the process to create the effects down to a text file to allow meaningfull modification of the work at a later point since todays free software won't handle that situation to fullfill the GPL? (There's been a repeated conversation wrt. source distribution and the DFSG: what should Debian require for things like images, fonts and movie clips? There isn't a strong consensus, yet.) Why does Debian than distribute that stuff at all? Isn't the normal policy to play safe and not distribute stuff unless it is clear what is meant by the license?
Re: Free Art License
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Ingo Ruhnke wrote: Say something like a graphical image of a button that is basically text + a few filters to add a 3d effect and such. If I want to change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull way, so that it fits together with other buttons that ues the same style, I need to know the filters and parameters that where used in the process, however often that is something that not even the orignal author might remember after a few days. Won't the resulting work be undistributable under GPL due to the lack of source? No. What you have currently is (from what you have explained) the prefered form for modification. This is no different from code that is badly documented where the author has a stroke and is no longer able to explain his code. The prefered form for modification is still extant, and is being distributed. Does the author need to manually write the process to create the effects down to a text file to allow meaningfull modification of the work at a later point since todays free software won't handle that situation to fullfill the GPL? I'd suggest that the author do that, because it would be very nice to have, and would make modification easier. However, failing to do that wouldn't cause the work to be undistributable under the GPL, at least to my understanding. what should Debian require for things like images, fonts and movie clips? Isn't the normal policy to play safe and not distribute stuff unless it is clear what is meant by the license? It depends on the specific case. In my opinion, almost all of those media types actually have a prefered form for modification. In some cases, we aren't distributing it, and that is a bug. In other cases, we are, and there's no real problem. -- Frankly, if ignoring inane opinions and noisy people and not flaming them to crisp is bad behaviour, I have not yet achieved a state of nirvana. -- Manoj Srivastava in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Free Art License
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 11:36:06PM +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote: (There's been a repeated conversation wrt. source distribution and the DFSG: what should Debian require for things like images, fonts and movie clips? There isn't a strong consensus, yet.) Why does Debian than distribute that stuff at all? Isn't the normal policy to play safe and not distribute stuff unless it is clear what is meant by the license? You're mixing up what does Debian (the DFSG) require and what does the GPL require. There have been repeated conversations about what the DFSG requires. However, while there's a lack of agreement on it, the worst case is that we violate the SC, not copyright law--it's not something to scoff at, but it doesn't put Debian in legal jeopardy. There have also been discussions about what the GPL requires, but I don't believe there's really much ambiguity. Preferred form for modification is an extremely functional definition. Of course, if you know of any data of any kind in Debian that's under the GPL and doesn't include source, point it out. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Free Art License
* Ingo Ruhnke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [12/09/04, 23:36:06]: If I want to change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull way, so that it fits together with other buttons that ues the same style, I need to know the filters and parameters that where used in the process, however often that is something that not even the orignal author might remember after a few days. Won't the resulting work be undistributable under GPL due to the lack of source? Does the author need to manually write the process to create the effects down to a text file to allow meaningfull modification of the work at a later point since todays free software won't handle that situation to fullfill the GPL? I'm not sure if I mentioned that before, but that'd be like requiring not only not-obfuscated code, but well commented code, as I'd for sure prefer that to uncommented code, and it's way easier even for the author to remember what the code does. Now let's have a look at OSS reality. Most code is documented like crap, the Linux kernel uses a lot of code that could've been written in a way that'd be easier to understand... and still this is considered source in the context of the GPL. The way I understand it, preferred form of making modifications does not equal the ideal form of making modifications. Just my EUR 0.02 Kai -- Kai Blin aka. nowhere (blinatgmx.net), WorldForge Project Web: http://www.worldforge.org/ Let a fool hold his tongue and he will pass for a sage. -- Publilius Syrus pgpnGMtqS1G80.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free Art License
* Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09/09/04, 05:03:24]: Is there a particular work under this license that you would like Debian to include, or do you just want a review of the license? I wanted a review of the license as we're considering switching the package sear-media and another media package that'll follow when our DD finishes the package to this license, the GPL being a bit unclear when used for artwork. As we have a couple of debian users, whether or nnot debian will accept the license is a part of the process of deciding about a new license. Cheers, Kai -- Kai Blin aka. nowhere (blinatgmx.net), WorldForge Project Web: http://www.worldforge.org/ I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean. -- G.K. Chesterton pgpncv6qa6F2o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free Art License
* Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09/09/04, 13:31:40]: It's very poorly worded; the body of the clause is All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is vague and meaningless. The rest isn't written as a restriction at all, but as a strange conclusion from the vague statement. I'd say that while they're trying to copyleft, they don't have the legal expertise required to do so clearly and enforcably. As this is a license originally written in French, it might just be a poor translation. :) Cheers, Kai -- Kai Blin aka. nowhere (blinatgmx.net), WorldForge Project Web: http://www.worldforge.org/ I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean. -- G.K. Chesterton
Re: Free Art License
Free Art license
[ Copyleft Attitude ]
version 1.2
Preamble:
[snipped; no license terms]
Definitions
The work of art:
A communal work which includes the initial oeuvre as well as all
subsequent contributions (subsequent originals and copies). It is
created at the initiative of the original artist who, by this license,
defines the conditions according to which the contributions are made.
The original work of art:
This is the oeuvre created by the initiator of the communal work, of
which copies will be modified by whosoever wishes.
Subsequent works:
These are the additions put forward by the artists who contribute to the
formation of the work by taking advantage of the right to reproduction,
distribution and modification that this license confers on them.
The Original (the work's source or resource):
A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of
its program which the originator provides as the reference for all
future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions.
Copy:
Any reproduction of an original as defined by this license.
The author or the artist of the initial work of art:
This is the person who created the work which is at the heart of the
ramifications of this modified work of art. By this license, the author
determines the conditions under which these modifications are made.
Contributor:
Any person who contributes to the creation of the work of art. He is the
author or the artist of an original art object resulting from the
modification of a copy of the initial oeuvre or the modification of a
copy of a subsequent work of art.
1. Aims
The aim of this license is to define the conditions according to which
you can use this work freely.
2. Extent Of The Usage
This work of art is subject to copyright, and the author, by this
license, specifies the extent to which you can copy, distribute and
modify it.
2.1 Freedom to Copy (or of Reproduction)
You have the right to copy this work of art for your personal use, for
your friends or for any other person, by employing whatever technique
you choose.
2.2 Freedom to Distribute, to Interpret (or of Representation)
You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not,
whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you
observe all the following conditions:
- attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate
precisely where the license can be found,
- specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,
- specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals
(original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes,
give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same
conditions as the copies.
This last condition does not specify what happens if subsequent
recipients might not be able to access the original and subsequent
originals.
2.3 Freedom to Modify
You have the right to modify the copies of the originals (original and
subsequent), partially or otherwise, respecting the conditions set out
in article 2.2 , in the event of distribution (or representation) of the
modified copy. The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you
the right to modify the original under the same conditions as the copies.
OK, clause 2 appears to grant all the necessary freedoms. The sentences
about the author of the original and the right to
{broadcast/distribute,modify} the original under the same conditions as
the copies are rather confusing, but I believe that for electronic
works, they are essentially equivalent to the author may or may not
incorporate your changes into the original version, which is fine.
For an actual physical piece of art (which probably does not directly
concern Debian, since it is not something Debian could package and
distribute), they would seem to make the original non-free in the sense
that one cannot modify it directly, but must make a copy first; all
subsequent copies would be 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 is a standard copyleft clause; no problems here.
4. Your Author's Rights
The object of this license is not to deny your author's rights on your
contribution. By choosing to contribute to the evolution of this work of
art, you only agree to give to others the same rights with regard to
your contribution as those which were granted to you by this license.
This is starting to tie into one oddity with the license: when you
distribute a modified version, you are not actually licensing your
modifications under this license, although you are granting all the
_rights_ in the license; as stated in clause 7, all licenses come from
the original author.
5. Duration of the Licence
Re: Free Art License
IMHO, looks like a free software, copyleft license. Any other thoughts out there? -Joe -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall http://pobox.com/~joehall/
Re: Free Art License
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 05:03:24AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: The author or the artist of the initial work of art: This is the person who created the work which is at the heart of the ramifications of this modified work of art. These definitions belong in an art textbook, not a license ... - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the copies. This last condition does not specify what happens if subsequent recipients might not be able to access the original and subsequent originals. I don't even know what subsequent originals means. 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 is a standard copyleft clause; no problems here. I don't recall seeing this wording before, and there aren't that many copyleft licenses in use, so I'm not sure I can agree that it's a standard clause. It's very poorly worded; the body of the clause is All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is vague and meaningless. The rest isn't written as a restriction at all, but as a strange conclusion from the vague statement. I'd say that while they're trying to copyleft, they don't have the legal expertise required to do so clearly and enforcably. 4. Your Author's Rights The object of this license is not to deny your author's rights on your contribution. By choosing to contribute to the evolution of this work of art, you only agree to give to others the same rights with regard to your contribution as those which were granted to you by this license. This is starting to tie into one oddity with the license: when you distribute a modified version, you are not actually licensing your modifications under this license, although you are granting all the _rights_ in the license; as stated in clause 7, all licenses come from the original author. (I'm not sure what rights means with respect to copyright law; I'm assuming it means permissions here, even though that's not what it means to me, since nothing else seems to make sense.) This doesn't make sense. In granting rights (permission) to do something, you're granting a license to do it. This is fine; versioned licenses are OK as long as the license doesn't force you to use any particular version, which this one doesn't. Er, if it forces you to use a particular version, it's not really versioned. (This license is versioned, but you must use version 1.2 is pointless.) Forced license upgrades is non-free, of course. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Free Art License
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:31:40 -0400, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 05:03:24AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: (...) 4. Your Author's Rights The object of this license is not to deny your author's rights on your contribution. By choosing to contribute to the evolution of this work of art, you only agree to give to others the same rights with regard to your contribution as those which were granted to you by this license. This is starting to tie into one oddity with the license: when you distribute a modified version, you are not actually licensing your modifications under this license, although you are granting all the _rights_ in the license; as stated in clause 7, all licenses come from the original author. (I'm not sure what rights means with respect to copyright law; I'm assuming it means permissions here, even though that's not what it means to me, since nothing else seems to make sense.) This doesn't make sense. In granting rights (permission) to do something, you're granting a license to do it. I think author's rights refers to something also called moral rights (droit moral). Author's rights is somewhat unimplemented in US copyright law but present French law, which is the choice of law for this license. They are basically inalienable rights of an author not to be misrepresented or have his expression through the licensed work distorted with respect to the licensed work. A quick Google produced this, which presents a view on author's rights with regard to US copyright law: http://www.rbs2.com/moral.htm -- Patrick
