Re: Art content licensing question
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Francesco Poli
<frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:21:05 -0400 Bart Kelsey wrote:
> Greets!
Hi! :-)
>
> I was wondering if the following license (heavily modified from zlib) would
> be acceptable for works of art included Debian:
The license is only a far relative of the zlib license.
It even attempts to implement a (weak) copyleft, in contrast with
the non-copyleft nature of zlib...
[...]
> 1. [...] If you use this work
> in a product, an acknowledgment of this use is required.
I am not sure that this is fine: would an acknowledgment in the product
packaging or documentation suffice?
Or must I buy TV advertisement time-slots on all TV broadcasters across
the world, in order to let anyone know that I used the work in my
product?
[...]
> 4. All aggregates containing this work must be allowed to be sold,
> swapped, given away, or otherwise distributed freely.
I personally think that this fails to meet DFSG #9, as it contaminates
other software distributed along with the licensed work.
[...]
> Any thoughts?
My own personal opinion is that this license is *not* suitable for
Debian.
What do others think?
--
New location for my website! Update your bookmarks!
http://www.inventati.org/frx
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Okay, here's a brief explanation of what it is that I'm trying to
accomplish. There are a significant number of artists out there who
would like to contribute art (graphics, music, etc) to FOSS game
projects, but are nervous about their work being exploited through
loopholes in licenses like the GPL, which may allow proprietary
interests to bundle their work with code that doesn't allow free
redistribution. I would prefer to avoid getting into a discussion
about whether this is really permissible under the GPL, and instead
address the issue with a clear, simple license that leaves no room for
interpretation on this matter.
In short: If someone creates freely redistributable media for a
game, they want to be sure that media is only used as a part of a
freely redistributable game. This would prevent someone from bundling
their artwork with, say, a game engine, and putting restrictions on the
redistribution of the game engine, while allowing free redistribution
of the art.
I may have overstepped a bit in terms of "aggregate". What I'd
*like* for this license to cover is basically a *project* -- a piece of
software, as a whole, which makes use of the media in question. There
isn't really a need to contaminate *other* software with this license.
Here's a revised version:
This work is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this work.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this work for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
freely, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The origin of this work must not be misrepresented; you must not
claim that you created the original work. If you use this work
in a product, an acknowledgment of this use is required in the
product documentation or credits.
2. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
misrepresented as being the original work.
3. All derivatives of this work must be released under this license.
For the purpose of this license, a "derivative" is a work generated
by modifying the licensed work.
4. All projects containing this work must be allowed to be sold,
swapped, given away, or otherwise distributed freely by anyone. For
the purpose of this license, a "project" is a piece of software
(such as a game), or other work that depends on the licensed work
in order to function as a whole.
5. This notice may not be removed or altered from this work.
Does this work a bit better?
Thanks,
Bart
--
--
Reply to: