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

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.


Other nitpicks:

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.

Richard Braakman



Reply to: