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]
the Free Art License and the DFSG
Hi debian-legal, I'm participating in a project that is opening the source of a classic game (Star Control 2) and porting it to modern operating systems. The code for the game has already been relicensed under the GPL, but the game's original authors (who hold copyright) have not yet picked a license for the large quantity of data that goes along side the game (recorded voices, ship and planet graphics, scripts for the dialog, etc). One license that was recently proposed was the Free Art License: http://www.artlibre.org/ for the original French version, http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html for an English translation. I'd like the advice of this list as to whether data under that license would be DFSG free. I think the license is a pretty straightforward copyleft, though at least the translated version has some unclear language. I'm especially uncomfortable about part 7, which I don't really understand, and part 8, which, if it's enforcable could be very awkward for people who are unfamilliar with the laws of France. Anyway, I hope that among the legal minds of this list there are a few people who's ability to comprehend legalistic French and/or iffy legalistic translations are greater than what I possess. Thanks! -- Steven Barker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Agree with them now, it will save so much time. Get my GnuPG public key at: http://www.blckknght.org/publickey.asc Fingerprint: 272A 3EC8 52CE F22B F745 775E 5292 F743 EBD5 936B pgp2KeZIrXXYP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: the Free Art License and the DFSG
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 01:51:59 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Barker) wrote: I'd like the advice of this list as to whether data under that license would be DFSG free. I think the license is a pretty straightforward copyleft, though at least the translated version has some unclear language. I'm especially uncomfortable about part 7, which I don't really understand, and part 8, which, if it's enforcable could be very awkward for people who are unfamilliar with the laws of France. I don't believe part 7 is saying anything additional to what copyright law already says; the original author still holds the copyright, even if you got the data from friend who got the data from a sister who got the data from an aunt who got the data from the original author. Part 8, I'm sure, will cause problems - it has in the past, but I can't remember in what context; it may just be that some zealots made some hubub a while back that. I don't really recall. However, Part 2.1 is a serious concern. You have the right to copy this work of art of your personal use, for your friends or any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose. Reading the original French, this is an accurate translation. As far as I know (and other more knowledgable people should comment), this goes against DSFG #6, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. The license seems to prohibit copies for non-personal use. I didn't look much further than this, so I may have missed other things. pgpZ4Ce6GE7D7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: the Free Art License and the DFSG
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 02:29, David B Harris wrote: I don't believe part 7 is saying anything additional to what copyright law already says; the original author still holds the copyright, even if you got the data from friend who got the data from a sister who got the data from an aunt who got the data from the original author. I agree with you here; I think that is the same thing as the first clause of GPL-2 Section 6, for example. Part 8, I'm sure, will cause problems - it has in the past, but I can't remember in what context; it may just be that some zealots made some hubub a while back that. I don't really recall. I can't manage to google out those objections (except in one really obscene case), and I wonder what this clause even means... Can I have French law, as interpreted by the courts of the County of Fairfax, Virginia, USA, if I sue? However, Part 2.1 is a serious concern. You have the right to copy this work of art of your personal use, for your friends or any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose. Reading the original French, this is an accurate translation. As far as I know (and other more knowledgable people should comment), this goes against DSFG #6, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. The license seems to prohibit copies for non-personal use. Non-personal use such as...? AFAIK, corporations are considered persons by law. In addition, even if this didn't give permission, section 2.2 give me permission to redistribute, which I think would cover it. This license is quite sloppy, though! Part of 2.2: - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (initial 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. I have no idea what that means. Perhaps bad translation? I'm not sure how you represent a modified copy of a work (2.3). I didn't know paintings could have lawyers. Section 3's demands on licenses contradicts section 2.3's grant of right to modify. Section 4 seems unsupported by the rest of the license. I strongly suggest not using this license. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: the Free Art License and the DFSG
On 14 Dec 2002 03:08:03 -0500 Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Part 8, I'm sure, will cause problems - it has in the past, but I can't remember in what context; it may just be that some zealots made some hubub a while back that. I don't really recall. I can't manage to google out those objections (except in one really obscene case), and I wonder what this clause even means... Can I have French law, as interpreted by the courts of the County of Fairfax, Virginia, USA, if I sue? Good point. I think the objections might have been from wording like, in the case of any dispute, it shall be resolved in the courts of such and such a jurisdiction. However, Part 2.1 is a serious concern. You have the right to copy this work of art of your personal use, for your friends or any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose. Reading the original French, this is an accurate translation. As far as I know (and other more knowledgable people should comment), this goes against DSFG #6, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. The license seems to prohibit copies for non-personal use. Non-personal use such as...? AFAIK, corporations are considered persons by law. In addition, even if this didn't give permission, section 2.2 give me permission to redistribute, which I think would cover it. Non-personal use such as commercial use. :) P.S.: Please do not CC: me on replies, I'm subscribed to the list. I'm surprised you haven't been flamed to death for it already by other people ;) pgpvUkuEQbwye.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: the Free Art License and the DFSG
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 03:08:03AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Part of 2.2: - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (initial 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. I have no idea what that means. Perhaps bad translation? I think that at least it implies that section 2.1 did not include the right to broadcast / distribute, even though it allows copies for any other person. Either it's a contradiction, or section 2.1 is not strong enough to meet DFSG #1. I also wonder about section 2.3: [...] The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to modify the original under the same conditions as the copies. I don't understand the distinction between modify the original and modify the copies of the originals. Does The Original refer to a physical work of art? I'm not sure how you represent a modified copy of a work (2.3). I didn't know paintings could have lawyers. represent has other meanings, and remember that this is a translation. I suspect that it refers to things like recreating an existing work in a different medium. For example, Blade Runner. Other nitpicks: Section 8 says this contract, even though it's a licence. Depending on what integrate means, section 3 might forbid using LAL artwork in a GPL game, which is precisely the case under consideration. Section 6 is not very specific about who is allowed to publish new versions of the licence. This doesn't restrict freedom, but it could get complicated if we ever get multiple competing versions. Richard Braakman
Re: the Free Art License and the DFSG
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 01:51:59AM -0500, Steven Barker wrote: I'm participating in a project that is opening the source of a classic game (Star Control 2) and porting it to modern operating systems. The code for the game has already been relicensed under the GPL, but the game's original authors (who hold copyright) have not yet picked a license for the large quantity of data that goes along side the game (recorded voices, ship and planet graphics, scripts for the dialog, etc). One license that was recently proposed was the Free Art License: http://www.artlibre.org/ for the original French version, http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html for an English translation. I'd like the advice of this list as to whether data under that license would be DFSG free. I think the license is a pretty straightforward copyleft, though at least the translated version has some unclear language. I'm especially uncomfortable about part 7, which I don't really understand, and part 8, which, if it's enforcable could be very awkward for people who are unfamilliar with the laws of France. Anyway, I hope that among the legal minds of this list there are a few people who's ability to comprehend legalistic French and/or iffy legalistic translations are greater than what I possess. In English, clause 8 seems to have much less boilerplate than I would expect; though I understand what it means, and I don't recall a declaration of legal venue rendering a license non-free (though I remember much discussion about the subject). Which version of the license -- French or English -- does your upstream plan to use? It is likely that they are not legally equivalent; particularly if France is the mandated venue for resolution of disputes, I'm inclined to think the French form would be preferred, as it would be more likely to be understood by a French court and less likely to have unintended consequences than the translation. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpItcnW7moaQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: the Free Art License and the DFSG
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 02:29:49AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: However, Part 2.1 is a serious concern. You have the right to copy this work of art of your personal use, for your friends or any other person, by employing whatever technique you choose. Reading the original French, this is an accurate translation. As far as I know (and other more knowledgable people should comment), this goes against DSFG #6, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. The license seems to prohibit copies for non-personal use. The English translation is faithful, yes. There may be a matter of legal definitions in French that make the original ok though the English appears to not be. I don't feel qualified to speculate beyond that. On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 03:08:03AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: This license is quite sloppy, though! Part of 2.2: - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (initial 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. I have no idea what that means. Perhaps bad translation? Well, there's a translation problem here in that the use of the word initial does not match the term original used in the definitions above, leading to some ambiguity as to what initial really means. It also makes no sense to refer to distributing the original, I don't think, as the original here refers to the original work itself -- i.e., NOT a copy -- and you can't really distribute a single object (in the sense of diffuser), though you can broadcast it. I'm not sure how you represent a modified copy of a work (2.3). I didn't know paintings could have lawyers. Bad translation. In context, représenter means to put on a play or to interpret. Section 3's demands on licenses contradicts section 2.3's grant of right to modify. The clear intention is to provide for a copyleft. 2.3 refers to modification, and there indicates that you can modify it freely, with the added permission to redistribute according to 2.2. Section 3 uses the terms intégrer and incorporation, which seems a distinct concept: that of combining the work or portions of the work with other preexisting works. Whether there is any legal basis for this distinction, I don't know. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpmflwst2XjN.pgp Description: PGP signature
