On Dec 22, 2009, Rubén Rodríguez Pérez <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm glad you liked it. You can find the image in wikipedia under the > GNU FDL, as I granted when the uploader asked me. I think it should be > also stated in the fsfla page if it is not already, so I'm sending it to > the linux-libre list.
> Alexandre, can you change the text so it says the license is the same as > per your image of the gnu+lux? Thanks. Uhh... Sorry it took me so long to react on this. The only reason I'm doing now is that @bleakgadfly asked on identi.ca, and it reminded me of this pending thread. http://identi.ca/conversation/28323641#notice-28371681 GNU FDL may be fine for on-line works, but I can't imagine printing the GFDL1.1 or GPLv3 on stickers, banners, etc. The only reason I chose that for gnu+lux was that the meditating gnu it was based on required it. But I remember the meditating gnu was to be relicensed, *also* under some ND license, to make room for easier uses in printing or so. I'm surprised the change hasn't happened yet. Richard, do you know why http://www.gnu.org/graphics/meditate.html still doesn't have the more permissive licensing terms we discussed a while ago? Anyhow... If you, Rubén, say you license Freedo 0.9 ;-) under GFDL1.1+|GPLv3+, I'd have to follow suit in the final Freedo, the derived version Islene and I made, and existing T-shirts, buttons and stickers, as well as Freed-ora and gNewSense/Lemote binary builds, would amount to infringing uses. I wish this wasn't so. I had (naively, perhaps) assumed more permissive terms for your contribution, very much along the lines of Burnaron's original design. So how about we settle on this instead: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this image under the terms either: 1. the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version, or 2. the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts and with no Back-Cover Texts. 3. CC-BY-ND 3.0, with additional permission to omit the names of the authors (AFAIK Burnaron, you, Islene and myself) if the names Freedo or Linux-libre, or a URL for the Linux-libre web site, appears close to the image. As an additional permission, whenever a derived work is distributed under 1. and/or 2., the terms of CC-BY-ND 3.0, with or without the additional permission in 3, and with or without the present additional permission, can be offered as an alternative to 1. and/or 2. Can anyone see any undesirable properties of this licensing arrangement? Richard, you think the levitating gnu could be licensed under similar terms? (with a suitable replacement of the details in 3., or removal of the additional permission) -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer _______________________________________________ linux-libre mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsfla.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-libre
