On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Francesco Poli <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:21:05 -0400 Bart Kelsey wrote: > > > Greets! > > Hi! :-) > > > > > I was wondering if the following license (heavily modified from zlib) > would > > be acceptable for works of art included Debian: > > The license is only a far relative of the zlib license. > It even attempts to implement a (weak) copyleft, in contrast with > the non-copyleft nature of zlib... > > [...] > > 1. [...] If you use this work > > in a product, an acknowledgment of this use is required. > > I am not sure that this is fine: would an acknowledgment in the product > packaging or documentation suffice? > Or must I buy TV advertisement time-slots on all TV broadcasters across > the world, in order to let anyone know that I used the work in my > product? > > [...] > > 4. All aggregates containing this work must be allowed to be sold, > > swapped, given away, or otherwise distributed freely. > > I personally think that this fails to meet DFSG #9, as it contaminates > other software distributed along with the licensed work. > > [...] > > Any thoughts? > > My own personal opinion is that this license is *not* suitable for > Debian. > > What do others think? > > > -- > New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! > http://www.inventati.org/frx > ..................................................... Francesco Poli . > GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 > Okay, here's a brief explanation of what it is that I'm trying to accomplish. There are a significant number of artists out there who would like to contribute art (graphics, music, etc) to FOSS game projects, but are nervous about their work being exploited through loopholes in licenses like the GPL, which may allow proprietary interests to bundle their work with code that doesn't allow free redistribution. I would prefer to avoid getting into a discussion about whether this is really permissible under the GPL, and instead address the issue with a clear, simple license that leaves no room for interpretation on this matter. In short: If someone creates freely redistributable media for a game, they want to be sure that media is only used as a part of a freely redistributable game. This would prevent someone from bundling their artwork with, say, a game engine, and putting restrictions on the redistribution of the game engine, while allowing free redistribution of the art. I may have overstepped a bit in terms of "aggregate". What I'd *like* for this license to cover is basically a *project* -- a piece of software, as a whole, which makes use of the media in question. There isn't really a need to contaminate *other* software with this license. Here's a revised version: This work is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this work. Permission is granted to anyone to use this work for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The origin of this work must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you created the original work. If you use this work in a product, an acknowledgment of this use is required in the product documentation or credits. 2. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original work. 3. All derivatives of this work must be released under this license. For the purpose of this license, a "derivative" is a work generated by modifying the licensed work. 4. All projects containing this work must be allowed to be sold, swapped, given away, or otherwise distributed freely by anyone. For the purpose of this license, a "project" is a piece of software (such as a game), or other work that depends on the licensed work in order to function as a whole. 5. This notice may not be removed or altered from this work. Does this work a bit better? Thanks, Bart -- --
