[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 02:29:49AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:

> 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.

The English translation is faithful, yes.  There may be a matter of
legal definitions in French that make the original ok though the English
appears to not be.  I don't feel qualified to speculate beyond that.

On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 03:08:03AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:

> 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?

Well, there's a translation problem here in that the use of the word
"initial" does not match the term "original" used in the definitions
above, leading to some ambiguity as to what "initial" really means.  It
also makes no sense to refer to "distributing the original", I don't
think, as the "original" here refers to the original work itself --
i.e., NOT a copy -- and you can't really distribute a single object (in
the sense of "diffuser"), though you can broadcast it.

> I'm not sure how you represent a modified copy of a work (2.3). I
> didn't know paintings could have lawyers.

Bad translation.  In context, "représenter" means "to put on a play"
or "to interpret".

> Section 3's demands on licenses contradicts section 2.3's grant of 
> right to modify.

The clear intention is to provide for a copyleft.  2.3 refers to
modification, and there indicates that you can modify it freely, with
the added permission to redistribute according to 2.2.  Section 3 uses
the terms "intégrer" and "incorporation", which seems a distinct
concept: that of combining the work or portions of the work with other
preexisting works.  Whether there is any legal basis for this
distinction, I don't know.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpZgfPtyBIm7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: