On Thu, 4 May 2006 02:09:51 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:18:32 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > > > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if
> > > > that is DFSG-free.
> > >
> > > I believe that it is.
> >
> > If you do, could you please reply to my analysis with an actual
> > rebuttal?
> OK.
>
> This license *has* to be read in the context of physical artwork. For
> an all-digital artwork, it has lots of redundant, unnecessary
> clauses.
Maybe, but I don't think it's clearly stated...
At least, the FSF does not mention this caveat in its license list:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
Anyway, let's assume it's for physical works of authorship only (if this
is true, we are quickly going off-topic here, since Debian users cannot
aptitude install physical objects...).
>
> Suppose the Mona Lisa were licensed under this license; I will give
> examples using it as I go through your comments.
Oh my goodness... We are lucky that copyright did not exist when
Leonardo Da Vinci was alive! ;-)
>
> You wrote earlier:
>
> > > - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the
> > > originals (original and subsequent).
> >
> > I'm a little concerned that this could mean that, in order to
> > distribute a work under this license, I forever required to keep
> > updated information on where recipients can access every previous
> > version.
> Not quite. Remember what "originals" means in the context of this
> license: it means a single copy, normally of a physical artwork.
>
> It *does* mean you would be forever required to keep updated
> information on where recipients can access the original artwork.
>
> (For the Mona Lisa, the answer would be The Louvre.)
For a less famous work it would be harder to tell!
>
> The freeness of this is arguable. I think it's supposed to be
> primarily a form of attribution or credit, and it doesn't seem
> unreasonable to me.
It would be if it stated something along the lines of:
| - specify to the recipient where *you were* able to access the
| originals (original and subsequent).
It instead forces me to track down any movement of the original work.
> However, it may be overbroad. Convince me.
> Perhaps keeping track of the movements of the Mona Lisa as it's sold
> to different museums *is* unreasonable.
That is exactly what I'm concerned of: since it says "specify to the
recipient where *he will be* able to access the originals", it's the
future it's talking about.
It could even be unsatisfiable, strictly speaking, because I cannot
specify *today* where the recipient will be able to access the originals
*in the future*.
But even ignoring that, it seems that I'm at least required to update
this datum everytime I distribute, interpret or represent the work...
I'm not a detective, how can I be forced to keep track of where every
original work I want to distribute (a copy of) goes?
>
> > What if the original changes, say, URL? Have I to keep track of
> > where it goes?
> This is literally impossible. The original is a single copy, not a
> work. If it changes URL, you are most likely looking at a different
> copy. :-)
OK, forget about the URL: s/URL/museum/
>
> > What if the original vanishes?
> Now, *this* is a problem. Since the original is a single copy, the
> vanishing of that copy is a big issue. I believe, however, that "The
> original has been destroyed; nobody at all can access it anywhere"
> should be sufficient to satisfy this clause. This should be drafted
> better to clarify this issue. This is a freeness issue indeed, if
> such a clause is not sufficient.
I'm not sure that such a statement would be considered enough to go away
with the destroyed original case...
So, indeed, I think this is another problem.
>
> This is, again, clearly intended for physical artwork. I'm not
> entirely sure *how* to apply it to artwork which originated in
> digital form.
>
> I believe the only logical interpretation of the license is that an
> all-digital work might have *no* "original" at all in the sense of the
> license. Recall the definition of "The Original":
>
> > - The Original (the work's source or resource) :
> > A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or
> > of its program which the originator provides as the reference for
> > all future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions.
I think it can make sense for non-material works too.
> (Incidentally, I have no idea what "of its partition" means here.
> "Its program" seems designed to refer to dance or theatre works.)
I think it's talking about a musical score (in italian: "partitura";
probably similar in french, I don't know).
[...]
> > Have I to keep a copy of the original and
> > make it available, in order to be able to distribute a subsequent
> > work?
> Stop thinking about copies. :-) Copies are no good regarding the
> "original".
OK.
>
> > > 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 does not seem to be clearly drafted, IMHO.
> This is clearly drafted, but you have to remember that "originals"
> refer to specific physical instances. You may not integrate the Mona
> Lisa into another work which is not subject to this license. You can
> do whatever you like with *copies* of the Mona Lisa; that's not what
> this clause is about, it's about the originals.
OK.
[...]
> The point to remember about this license is that it is specifically
> designed for physical works which have a unique physical original; as
> long as you remember that when reading the word "original", it makes
> sense. If you don't notice that, the license won't make any sense.
>
> It is still somewhat fuzzily written,
Indeed.
> but I think none of the points
> are actually freeness issues.
I think we spotted some DFSG-freeness issues.
Moreover you are pretty sure that this license is not really suitable
for non-material works of authorship, and that is another issues (taking
into account that the license was originally mentioned in a thread about
gnome-theme licensing!).
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpyv9bwVmfZW.pgp
Description: PGP signature