Re: Free Art License
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 05:03:24AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > The author or the artist of the initial work of art:
> > This is the person who created the work which is at the heart of the
> > ramifications of this modified work of art.
These definitions belong in an art textbook, not a license ...
> > - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals
> > (original 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.
>
> This last condition does not specify what happens if subsequent
> recipients might not be able to access the original and subsequent
> originals.
I don't even know what "subsequent originals" means.
> > 3. Incorporation of Artwork
> >
> > All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you
> > are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents)
> > into another work which would not be subject to this license.
>
> This is a standard copyleft clause; no problems here.
I don't recall seeing this wording before, and there aren't that many
copyleft licenses in use, so I'm not sure I can agree that it's a
standard clause.
It's very poorly worded; the body of the "clause" is "All the elements
of this work of art must remain free", which is vague and meaningless.
The rest isn't written as a restriction at all, but as a strange conclusion
from the vague statement.
I'd say that while they're trying to copyleft, they don't have the legal
expertise required to do so clearly and enforcably.
> > 4. Your Author's Rights
> >
> > The object of this license is not to deny your author's rights on your
> > contribution. By choosing to contribute to the evolution of this work of
> > art, you only agree to give to others the same rights with regard to
> > your contribution as those which were granted to you by this license.
>
> This is starting to tie into one oddity with the license: when you
> distribute a modified version, you are not actually licensing your
> modifications under this license, although you are granting all the
> _rights_ in the license; as stated in clause 7, all licenses come from
> the original author.
(I'm not sure what "rights" means with respect to copyright law; I'm
assuming it means "permissions" here, even though that's not what it means
to me, since nothing else seems to make sense.)
This doesn't make sense. In granting rights (permission) to do something,
you're granting a license to do it.
> This is fine; versioned licenses are OK as long as the license doesn't
> force you to use any particular version, which this one doesn't.
Er, if it forces you to use a particular version, it's not really versioned.
("This license is versioned, but you must use version 1.2" is pointless.)
Forced license upgrades is non-free, of course.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: