Hello, I am enthusiatic about the idea of copyleft, and on the whole, I like the Design Science License, but there is one small issue concering the application of the DSL that I find somewhat problematic.
In Section 3 of the Design Science License, it states that distribution of the Object Form of a work under the DSL requires that "a copy of this License is distributed along with the Work." In many cases, it is easy to include a copy of the license with the Work, for example when distributing a copy online, or when distributing a full-length book. However, there are cases where it would be hard to distribute a copy of the License with a Work. An example I've been involved with directly is the following: I and several other students in activist groups at New York University are considering using copyleft with material we create. A good deal of our material, such as fact sheets, flyers, and short articles, are very short, in many cases no more than a single page. If you're printing out a large number of copies - in many cases more than 100 - of a 1-page document, it's cumbersome to attach a 3-page license to each copy (especially if you are using a 1-side photocopier). I can envision a similar problem with off-line copies of pictures, or printed material not substantially longer than the DSL itself. In cases like these, I suggest that instead of requiring that a full license be attached, the DSL should state that the Work may instead list an URL where the License may be read. The copyleft notice plus URLs for the License and Source Data could fit on one or two lines of text, which does not take up too much room on a 1-page document or at the bottom of an image. Joel Schlosberg
