Re: the Free Art License and the DFSG
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 03:08:03AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> 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 think that at least it implies that section 2.1 did not include
"the right to broadcast / distribute", even though it allows copies
"for any other person". Either it's a contradiction, or section 2.1
is not strong enough to meet DFSG #1.
I also wonder about section 2.3:
[...] The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right
to modify the original under the same conditions as the copies.
I don't understand the distinction between "modify the original" and
"modify the copies of the originals". Does "The Original" refer to a
physical work of art?
> I'm not sure how you represent a modified copy of a work (2.3). I didn't
> know paintings could have lawyers.
"represent" has other meanings, and remember that this is a translation.
I suspect that it refers to things like recreating an existing work in
a different medium. For example, Blade Runner.
Section 8 says "this contract", even though it's a licence.
Depending on what "integrate" means, section 3 might forbid using LAL
artwork in a GPL game, which is precisely the case under consideration.
Section 6 is not very specific about who is allowed to publish new versions
of the licence. This doesn't restrict freedom, but it could get complicated
if we ever get multiple competing versions.