Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3
Francesco Poli
back on April 2006, we discussed the Free Art License version 1.2:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00257.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00259.html
My own conclusion was that this license seemed to be *intended* to be a
free copyleft one (but incompatible with GPLv2), but failed to meet the
DFSG, due to some issues.
Nobody seemed to disagree with this conclusion.
I've recently found out that a new version of the Free Art License was
published in the meanwhile:
http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
Since version 1.2 included an auto-upgrade clause, I was very
interested in analyzing the version 1.3, in the hope that the
previously mentioned issues could be fixed with this new license text.
The full license text is quoted below, downloaded with
$ w3m -cols 70 -dump http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
Free Art License 1.3
[ Copyleft Attitude ]
Free Art License 1.3 (FAL 1.3)
Preamble
The Free Art License grants the right to freely copy, distribute, and
transform creative works without infringing the author's rights.
The Free Art License recognizes and protects these rights. Their
implementation has been reformulated in order to allow everyone to
use creations of the human mind in a creative manner, regardless of
their types and ways of expression.
While the public's access to creations of the human mind usually is
restricted by the implementation of copyright law, it is favoured by
the Free Art License. This license intends to allow the use of a
work’s resources; to establish new conditions for creating in order
to increase creation opportunities. The Free Art License grants the
right to use a work, and acknowledges the right holder’s and the
user’s rights and responsibility.
The invention and development of digital technologies, Internet and
Free Software have changed creation methods: creations of the human
mind can obviously be distributed, exchanged, and transformed. They
allow to produce common works to which everyone can contribute to the
benefit of all.
The main rationale for this Free Art License is to promote and
protect these creations of the human mind according to the principles
of copyleft: freedom to use, copy, distribute, transform, and
prohibition of exclusive appropriation.
Definitions
“work” either means the initial work, the subsequent works or the
common work as defined hereafter:
“common work” means a work composed of the initial work and all
subsequent contributions to it (originals and copies). The initial
author is the one who, by choosing this license, defines the
conditions under which contributions are made.
“Initial work” means the work created by the initiator of the common
work (as defined above), the copies of which can be modified by
whoever wants to
“Subsequent works” means the contributions made by authors who
participate in the evolution of the common work by exercising the
rights to reproduce, distribute, and modify that are granted by the
license.
“Originals” (sources or resources of the work) means all copies of
either the initial work or any subsequent work mentioning a date and
used by their author(s) as references for any subsequent updates,
interpretations, copies or reproductions.
“Copy” means any reproduction of an original as defined by this
license.
1. OBJECT
The aim of this license is to define the conditions under which one
can use this work freely.
2. SCOPE
This work is subject to copyright law. Through this license its
author specifies the extent to which you can copy, distribute, and
modify it.
2.1 FREEDOM TO COPY (OR TO MAKE REPRODUCTIONS)
You have the right to copy this work for yourself, your friends or
any other person, whatever the technique used.
2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO PERFORM IN PUBLIC
You have the right to distribute copies of this work; whether
modified or not, whatever the medium and the place, with or without
any charge, provided that you:
attach this license without any modification to the copies of this
work or indicate precisely where the license can be found,
specify to the recipient the names of the author(s) of the originals,
including yours if you have modified the work,
specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either
initial or subsequent).
The authors of the originals may, if they wish to, give you the right
to distribute the originals under the same conditions as the copies.
2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY
You have the right to modify copies of the originals (whether initial
or subsequent) provided you comply with the following conditions:
all conditions in article 2.2 above, if you distribute modified
copies;
indicate that the work has been modified and, if it is possible, what
kind of modifications have been made;
distribute the subsequent work under the same license or any
compatible license.
The author(s) of the original work may give you the right to modify
it under the same conditions as the copies.
3. RELATED RIGHTS
Activities giving rise to author’s rights and related rights shall
not challenge the rights granted by this license.
For example, this is the reason why performances must be subject to
the same license or a compatible license. Similarly, integrating the
work in a database, a compilation or an anthology shall not prevent
anyone from using the work under the same conditions as those defined
in this license.
4. INCORPORATION OF THE WORK
Incorporating this work into a larger work that is not subject to the
Free Art License shall not challenge the rights granted by this
license.
If the work can no longer be accessed apart from the larger work in
which it is incorporated, then incorporation shall only be allowed
under the condition that the larger work is subject either to the
Free Art License or a compatible license.
5. COMPATIBILITY
A license is compatible with the Free Art License provided:
it gives the right to copy, distribute, and modify copies of the work
including for commercial purposes and without any other restrictions
than those required by the respect of the other compatibility
criteria;
it ensures proper attribution of the work to its authors and access
to previous versions of the work when possible;
it recognizes the Free Art License as compatible (reciprocity);
it requires that changes made to the work be subject to the same
license or to a license which also meets these compatibility
criteria.
6. YOUR INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS
This license does not aim at denying your author's rights in your
contribution or any related right. By choosing to contribute to the
development of this common work, you only agree to grant others the
same rights with regard to your contribution as those you were
granted by this license. Conferring these rights does not mean you
have to give up your intellectual rights.
7. YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
The freedom to use the work as defined by the Free Art License (right
to copy, distribute, modify) implies that everyone is responsible for
their own actions.
8. DURATION OF THE LICENSE
This license takes effect as of your acceptance of its terms. The act
of copying, distributing, or modifying the work constitutes a tacit
agreement. This license will remain in effect for as long as the
copyright which is attached to the work. If you do not respect the
terms of this license, you automatically lose the rights that it
confers.
If the legal status or legislation to which you are subject makes it
impossible for you to respect the terms of this license, you may not
make use of the rights which it confers.
9. VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE LICENSE
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 always have the choice of accepting the terms contained in
the version under which the copy of the work was distributed to you,
or alternatively, to use the provisions of one of the subsequent
versions.
10. SUB-LICENSING
Sub-licenses are not authorized by this license. Any person wishing
to make use of the rights that it confers will be directly bound to
the authors of the common work.
11. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
This license is written with respect to both French law and the Berne
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
USER GUIDE
- How to use the Free Art License?
To benefit from the Free Art License, you only need to mention the
following elements on your work:
[Name of the author, title, date of the work. When applicable, names
of authors of the common work and, if possible, where to find the
originals].
Copyleft: This is a free work, you can copy, distribute, and modify
it under the terms of the Free Art License http://artlibre.org/
licence/lal/en/
- Why to use the Free Art License?
1.To give the greatest number of people access to your work.
2.To allow it to be distributed freely.
3.To allow it to evolve by allowing its copy, distribution, and
transformation by others.
4.So that you benefit from the resources of a work when it is under
the Free Art License: to be able to copy, distribute or transform it
freely.
5.But also, because the Free Art License offers a legal framework to
disallow any misappropriation. It is forbidden to take hold of your
work and bypass the creative process for one's exclusive possession.
- When to use the Free Art License?
Any time you want to benefit and make others benefit from the right
to copy, distribute and transform creative works without any
exclusive appropriation, you should use the Free Art License. You can
for example use it for scientific, artistic or educational projects.
- What kinds of works can be subject to the Free Art License?
The Free Art License can be applied to digital as well as physical
works.
You can choose to apply the Free Art License on any text, picture,
sound, gesture, or whatever sort of stuff on which you have
sufficient author's rights.
- Historical background of this license:
It is the result of observing, using and creating digital
technologies, free software, the Internet and art. It arose from the
“Copyleft Attitude” meetings which took place in Paris in 2000. For
the first time, these meetings brought together members of the Free
Software community, artists, and members of the art world. The goal
was to adapt the principles of Copyleft and free software to all
sorts of creations. http://www.artlibre.org
Copyleft Attitude, 2007.
You can make reproductions and distribute this license verbatim
(without any changes).
Translation : Jonathan Clarke, Benjamin Jean, Griselda Jung,
Fanny Mourguet, Antoine Pitrou.
Thanks to framalang.org
Cette page a été éditée le 20/07/2005
--
On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND
"nano-documents" may lead you to my website...
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Francesco Poli
[...]
> Since version 1.2 included an auto-upgrade clause, I was very
> interested in analyzing the version 1.3, in the hope that the
> previously mentioned issues could be fixed with this new license text.
Here's my own comments.
As usual, IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
(If these disclaimers are useless/not-enough/ludicrous/awkward/whatever,
please come to an agreed conclusion on what a poor contributor should
do in order to participate in this mailing list discussions!)
> Free Art License 1.3
[...]
> 2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO PERFORM IN PUBLIC
[...]
> specify to the recipient the names of the author(s) of the originals,
> including yours if you have modified the work,
This might forbid anonymous works or anonymous modifications,
which is non-free, IMO.
> specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either
> initial or subsequent).
This condition is a little improved with respect to the corresponding
one in the Free Art License version 1.2.
However, I am still a little concerned that this could mean that, in
order to distribute a work under this license, I am required, as long
as I go on distributing, 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 to be non-free.
[...]
> 2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY
[...]
> distribute the subsequent work under the same license or any
> compatible license.
This condition appears to be poorly drafted, since it could be
interpreted to mandate distribution as a requirement to get the
permission to modify.
Under this interpretation (which I think was not intended), this
license would force modifiers to distribute their modified versions,
even when they would rather keep them private.
Forced distribution is a non-free restriction, IMO.
[...]
> 5. COMPATIBILITY
> A license is compatible with the Free Art License provided:
> it gives the right to copy, distribute, and modify copies of the work
> including for commercial purposes and without any other restrictions
> than those required by the respect of the other compatibility
> criteria;
> it ensures proper attribution of the work to its authors and access
> to previous versions of the work when possible;
> it recognizes the Free Art License as compatible (reciprocity);
> it requires that changes made to the work be subject to the same
> license or to a license which also meets these compatibility
> criteria.
I think that, with these compatibility criteria, especially the last
two, the GNU GPL (v2 or v3) does not qualify as a "compatible" license,
unfortunately.
I am not aware of any other license that meets the DFSG and may be
considered a "compatible" license.
[...]
> 9. VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE LICENSE
> 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 always have the choice of accepting the terms contained in
> the version under which the copy of the work was distributed to you,
> or alternatively, to use the provisions of one of the subsequent
> versions.
Please note that this is an auto-upgrade clause.
Not a freeness issue by itself, but something to keep in mind anyway.
In summary, this license seems to be *intended* to be a Free copyleft
one (but incompatible with GPLv2 and GPLv3).
There are some issues though that seem to make it fail.
It's not a license that I would recommend, because of its issues and
lack of clarity.
Mahesh T. Pai
> This might forbid anonymous works or anonymous modifications,
> which is non-free, IMO.
Why so?
>> specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either
>> initial or subsequent).
>
> This condition is a little improved with respect to the
>corresponding one in the Free Art License version 1.2. However, I
>am still a little concerned that this could mean that, in order to
>distribute a work under this license, I am required, as long as I go
>on distributing, 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?
I guess this caused by poor wording. I believe that the authors of the
license meant that the distributor should disclose his source; but as
you rightly point out, the entire license is very poorly drafted, and
we an only take it to mean what it says, in plain language.
OTOTH, if the URL was something like a dynamic page, (you access the
original from a newspaper's site, and the site later moves the page to
some 'archives' section) I am sure that this is a requirement
impossible to comply with. Would not referring to the home page in
such cirumstances be sufficient compliance?
Like "Originals available from http;//www.foo.com" instead of
"http://www.foo.com/20090101/articles/local/duh/blabla.html"?
> [...]
>> 2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY
> [...]
>> distribute the subsequent work under the same license or any
>> compatible license.
>
> This condition appears to be poorly drafted, since it could be
> interpreted to mandate distribution as a requirement to get the
> permission to modify.
While I agree that the license would do with some better wording
everywhere, I am not sure I agree here.
--
Mahesh T. Pai || http://paivakil.blogspot.com
Man's most judicious trait, is a good sense of what not to believe.
--Euripides
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-leg...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Ben Finney
> Francesco Poli <f...@firenze.linux.it> writes:
>
> > This might forbid anonymous works or anonymous modifications,
> > which is non-free, IMO.
>
> Why so?
I believe <URL:http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident>
applies.
--
\ “In the long run, the utility of all non-Free software |
`\ approaches zero. All non-Free software is a dead end.” —Mark |
_o__) Pilgrim, 2006 |
Ben Finney
Francesco Poli
> Francesco Poli <f...@firenze.linux.it> writes:
>
> > This might forbid anonymous works or anonymous modifications,
> > which is non-free, IMO.
>
> Why so?
Which is the part you're asking clarifications about?
If you are asking "why might this forbid anonymous
works/modifications?", then my reply is:
because specifying the names of authors and of modifiers is a condition
to get the permission to distribute, and the license text could be
interpreted to mean that nicknames and/or the term "anonymous" don't
qualify as "names".
If you are instead asking "why do you consider forbidding anonymous
works/modifications as a non-free restriction?", then my reply is:
because being forced to disclose one's identity may be a significant
restriction on modification (DFSG#3) and a significant restriction on
redistribution (DFSG#1).
Please note that, among other things, the original author could be
anonymous (since he/she is not bound by the license he/she chooses),
and hence I could even ignore the "names of the author(s) of the
originals": in that case, it seems that I cannot distribute in
compliance with the license, and hence I could even find myself with no
permission to distribute at all...
I hope this clarifies.
Marco d'Itri
>Nobody seemed to disagree with this conclusion.
Please do not mistake lack of interest in your ramblings with consensus.
--
ciao,
Marco
Simon Chopin
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:48:32PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
[...]
> >> 5. COMPATIBILITY
> >> A license is compatible with the Free Art License provided:
> >> it gives the right to copy, distribute, and modify copies of the work
> >> including for commercial purposes and without any other restrictions
> >> than those required by the respect of the other compatibility
> >> criteria;
> >> it ensures proper attribution of the work to its authors and access
> >> to previous versions of the work when possible;
> >> it recognizes the Free Art License as compatible (reciprocity);
> >> it requires that changes made to the work be subject to the same
> >> license or to a license which also meets these compatibility
> >> criteria.
> >
> > I think that, with these compatibility criteria, especially the last
> > two, the GNU GPL (v2 or v3) does not qualify as a "compatible" license,
> > unfortunately.
> > I am not aware of any other license that meets the DFSG and may be
> > considered a "compatible" license.
>
> According to the French Wikipédia page [2], it is compatible withe the
> Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA) v3.0 and a quick search made
> me find a document proposed with both this licences [3]
>
> 2: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Art_Libre
> 3:
> http://www.eolevent.eu/sites/default/files/5_B_Jean_Compatibility_Incompatibility-En_0.pdf
>
> We (as in the www-team working on including Kalle's design to the
> website and many other part of Debian for Squeeze release) would really
> like to know if we can consider this license DFSG compatible, or if we
> really need to ask Kalle to change it.
Out of curiosity, I looked at the GNU License list and found the Free
Art/Art Libre license [1]. As it turns out, the FSF lawyers have already
stated that this license, while free, isn't GPL-compatible.
IMHO (very humble, actually), I don't see where this license isn't
DFSG-compliant, but I am able to understand the French version, and have
to agree with David on the inaccuracy of the translation. Is the text of
the license included with Kalle's work the English or the French one ?
I also assume the license forces the www-team to package the licenced
stuff into a separate package. Am I correct, and would it be easily
doable ?
Cheers,
Simon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-leg...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110120022446.GB10146@beldin
David Prévot
Hash: SHA256
Le 19/01/2011 22:24, Simon Chopin a écrit :
> Hi !
Hi all, Kalle CCed,
> Out of curiosity, I looked at the GNU License list and found the Free
> Art/Art Libre license [1]. As it turns out, the FSF lawyers have already
> stated that this license, while free, isn't GPL-compatible.
>
> IMHO (very humble, actually), I don't see where this license isn't
> DFSG-compliant, but I am able to understand the French version, and have
> to agree with David on the inaccuracy of the translation. Is the text of
> the license included with Kalle's work the English or the French one ?
It links to the English version on this terms:
Copyleft : This work is free, you can copy, spread, and modify it under
the terms of the Free Art License http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
but according to the License FAQ, it's is under French right and valid
in countries that signed the Berne Convention for the Protection of
Literary and Artistic Works.
> I also assume the license forces the www-team to package the licenced
> stuff into a separate package. Am I correct, and would it be easily
> doable ?
Actually, the website itself is not packaged, so it doesn't need to
comply with the DFSG (well, where would the Debian Logo go? ;-), but the
question remains to include Kalle's design in a package like
installation-guide.
Kalle, would it be OK for you to publish your design under a double
license (e.g. Free Art License 1.3 and GPL if this is possible)?
Regards
David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)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=a9BJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-leg...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Francesco Poli
[...]
> Hi,
Hello!
[...]
> Le 25/01/2009 07:55, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:41:18 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> May I dig up this almost one year old thread,
I would say almost two years old, but I digress... ;-)
> in order to ask or maybe
> add some enlightenment about this license, used by Kalle's for his design.
Welcome on board! :-)
>
> As an introduction, I would like to point to the “Licenses” page of the
> FSF [...] that consider, about “Licenses for Other Types of Works”: “We
> don't take the position that artistic or entertainment works must be
> free, but if you want to make one free, we recommend the Free Art License.”
This is known and not so relevant as it may seem: the Debian Project is
not the FSF and the FSF is not the Debian Project.
Too bad that the FSF doesn't take "the position that artistic or
entertainment works must be free"!
I take that position, instead.
And, fortunately, the Debian Project uses the same guidelines (that is
to say, the DFSG) to assess the freeness of any software work [1], not
only computer programs. In 2004 it was decided (through general
resolution GR-2004-003 [2]) to make this clearer, by amending the
Social Contract.
[1] http://www.inventati.org/frx/essays/softfrdm/whatissoftware.html
[2] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003
Moreover, the fact that the FSF considers a license free (or even
recommends it) does not necessarily imply that the Debian Project
should come to the same conclusion (and vice-versa!).
>
> This license is about artistic work, is initially written in French,
[...]
> I believe that Francesco's concern about this license to comply with
> DFSG are mostly due to lack of context and maybe some not best choice of
> translation.
I admit that I only analyzed the English translation of the license,
since I cannot read French legalese (my knowledge of the French
language is unfortunately close to zero, apart from the meanings I can
guess by analogy with my native language, which is Italian).
Anyway, the fact that the English translation is possibly inaccurate
should IMHO be counted among the flaws of the Free Art License...
>
> >> Free Art License 1.3
> > [...]
> >> 2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO PERFORM IN PUBLIC
> > [...]
> >> specify to the recipient the names of the author(s) of the originals,
> >> including yours if you have modified the work,
> >
> > This might forbid anonymous works or anonymous modifications,
> > which is non-free, IMO.
>
> Actually, especially in artistic work, the “name of the author” doesn't
> need to comply with the civil one (most artists use pseudonym),
I really hope the *intended* meaning of the license is to not forbid
anonymous or pseudonymous works/modifications, but I am still convinced
that the *actual* license text is not clear enough on this point.
That's why I said that this clause *might* forbid anonymous works or
modifications.
> and I
> fail to understand the difference with the GPL that ask to mention <name
> of author> in the copyright.
Where does the GNU GPL (v2 or v3) ask that?
AFAICT, the GPL mandates the inclusion of appropriate copyright
notices, which, however, may well use pseudonyms, or the term
"anonymous", instead of civil names.
>
> >> specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either
> >> initial or subsequent).
> >
> > This condition is a little improved with respect to the corresponding
> > one in the Free Art License version 1.2.
> > However, I am still a little concerned that this could mean that, in
> > order to distribute a work under this license, I am required, as long
> > as I go on distributing, to keep updated information on where recipients
> > can access every previous version.
>
> Please keep in mind that artistic work may have one original, and that,
> unlike computer data, copy of the original may differ from it.
I am aware that the Free Art License is conceived in such a way to be
applicable to material works too (for instance to statues, paintings,
and so forth...).
However, here we are analyzing the freeness of works licensed under the
Free Art License for the purposes of the Debian Project. Hence the
primary concern is how the license applies to works that may
(technically) be distributed through the Debian mirror network and the
Debian website(s): that is to say, software works, in the broadest sense
of the term "software" (see again my above-mentioned essay [1]).
> Please
> refer to the “Definitions” part of the license about “Originals”,
> “Initial work” and “Subsequent works”. Anyway, the French sentence that
> is “indiquer au destinataire où il *pourrait* avoir accès aux originaux”
> that could better be translated in “specify to the recipient where he
> *could* access the originals“. In artistic work, original may be broken,
> lost, or definitely altered by subsequent work for example. It really
> sounds like if “if possible” is missing (or is implied) in the English
> translation.
If my concern is indeed caused by an unclear English translation, then
I would really love to see an improved English wording in the next
version of the Free Art License.
Well, of course, I would like to see other improvements as well: most
important of all, GPL-compatibility... But anyway...
>
> > What if the original changes, say, URL? Have I to keep track of where
> > it goes?
>
> If possible, but it can be the URL where you did find the original, so
> you “specify to the recipient where to access the originals” at the time
> you did your subsequent work or your copy.
*If* this is the correct interpretation of the license, then, great!,
it seems that this clause does not cause any trouble.
The problem is: where's an official and legally binding statement that
assures this is the correct interpretation?
Since the license text is not too clear, we *cannot* assume that *any*
licensor will interpret the license as we would prefer...
>
> > 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?
>
> In artistic domain, original *can* vanish, it's implied.
Originals can vanish even in technical domains: I think that the
original versions of several computer programs have been lost since the
beginning of the history of computer science. And many originals still
get lost nowadays, no need to go back to ENIAC times!
My point was: *since* originals *can* vanish (as you acknowledge), what
happens *when* they actually vanish?
>
> >> 2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY
> > [...]
> >> distribute the subsequent work under the same license or any
> >> compatible license.
> >
> > This condition appears to be poorly drafted, since it could be
> > interpreted to mandate distribution as a requirement to get the
> > permission to modify.
> > Under this interpretation (which I think was not intended), this
> > license would force modifiers to distribute their modified versions,
> > even when they would rather keep them private.
> > Forced distribution is a non-free restriction, IMO.
>
> The original sentence “diffuser cette oeuvre conséquente avec la même
> licence ou avec toute licence compatible” can be understand as in : *if*
> you “distribute the subsequent work”, you ave to do it ”under the same
> license or any compatible license.” The way things are written is really
> with physical object in mind (not computer data).
Well, that's the issue I was pointing out two years ago: unclear
wording can lead to a non-free interpretation of the license (an
interpretation that includes a forced distribution clause).
Since we cannot assume that nobody will interpret the license in this
non-free way, we have a problem, even if (as I suspect) the intended
meaning of the license was harmless...
>
> > [...]
> >> 5. COMPATIBILITY
> >> A license is compatible with the Free Art License provided:
> >> it gives the right to copy, distribute, and modify copies of the work
> >> including for commercial purposes and without any other restrictions
> >> than those required by the respect of the other compatibility
> >> criteria;
> >> it ensures proper attribution of the work to its authors and access
> >> to previous versions of the work when possible;
> >> it recognizes the Free Art License as compatible (reciprocity);
> >> it requires that changes made to the work be subject to the same
> >> license or to a license which also meets these compatibility
> >> criteria.
> >
> > I think that, with these compatibility criteria, especially the last
> > two, the GNU GPL (v2 or v3) does not qualify as a "compatible" license,
> > unfortunately.
> > I am not aware of any other license that meets the DFSG and may be
> > considered a "compatible" license.
>
> According to the French Wikipédia page [...], it is compatible withe the
> Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA) v3.0
Where does the French Wikipédia page [3] says that CC-by-sa-v3.0 is
"compatible" with the Free Art License?
[3] http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Art_Libre
It currently states that "Elle est l'équivalent de la licence Creative
Commons Share Alike By Attribution", which I think means "It is the
equivalent of the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license".
Please note that "equivalent" != "compatible".
Anyway, independently of what Wikipedia says, I don't think that
CC-by-sa-v3.0 qualifies as a "compatible" license, with respect to the
Free Art License: it does not comply with the reciprocity condition and
it does not allow modifications to be subject to a license that meets
the compatibility criteria defined in the Free Art License.
> and a quick search made
> me find a document proposed with both this licences
[...]
The existence of works dual-licensed under any pair of licenses is
irrelevant with respect to the compatibility, or lack thereof, between
the two licenses.
Actually, dual-licensing makes especially sense when the two adopted
licenses are *incompatible* with each other.
> We (as in the www-team working on including Kalle's design to the
> website and many other part of Debian for Squeeze release) would really
> like to know if we can consider this license DFSG compatible, or if we
> really need to ask Kalle to change it.
My own personal opinion is still the one I expressed about two years
ago [4]:
[...]
| In summary, this license seems to be *intended* to be a Free copyleft
| one (but incompatible with GPLv2 and GPLv3).
| There are some issues though that seem to make it fail.
|
| It's not a license that I would recommend, because of its issues and
| lack of clarity.
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/01/msg00119.html
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Francesco Poli
[...]
> Le 19/01/2011 22:24, Simon Chopin a écrit :
> > Hi !
>
> Hi all, Kalle CCed,
Hello!
I am also CC:ing Kalle.
[...]
> > IMHO (very humble, actually), I don't see where this license isn't
> > DFSG-compliant,
Please see my analysis:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/01/msg00119.html
and my recent reply:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2011/01/msg00042.html
> > but I am able to understand the French version, and have
> > to agree with David on the inaccuracy of the translation.
The inaccurate English translation is a flaw in itself.
[...]
> > I also assume the license forces the www-team to package the licenced
> > stuff into a separate package. Am I correct, and would it be easily
> > doable ?
>
> Actually, the website itself is not packaged, so it doesn't need to
> comply with the DFSG
It doesn't need to, since it's not part of the Debian system (see the
Social Contract), but I think it should be as close to DFSG-free as
possible (ideally perfectly DFSG-free).
See also http://bugs.debian.org/238245
> (well, where would the Debian Logo go? ;-),
Oh, let's not open that can of worms within this thread, please: it
would drive the discussion far far away... The Debian Logo license
issue has been discussed several times on debian-legal and elsewhere,
so let's avoid mixing two mostly unrelated topics.
> but the
> question remains to include Kalle's design in a package like
> installation-guide.
Good question: in that case, it would be greatly appreciated if Kalle's
design were licensed under GPL-v2-compatible terms.
>
> Kalle, would it be OK for you to publish your design under a double
> license (e.g. Free Art License 1.3 and GPL if this is possible)?
I would also like to express my personal desire to see Kalle's design
licensed (or at least dual-licensed) under the GNU GPL v2.
Please, Kalle, consider doing so!
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .