[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: