Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> The key words here are what "totally free" means, and what "use"
> means. If "totally free" means "you have the freedom to do anything
> you wish with these works" then that's a different meaning entirely
> than "you don't have to pay for these works".
Given the subsequent "This means [use for any purpose]" language, I
think "free as in beer" is unlikely (though we'd need a confirmation
> Likewise, if "use" means just "perform", then it's totally different
> from a standin for "use in any manner, including but not limited to
> modifcation, distribution, and performance."
I'll also point out that there is massive precedent for "artists" to
find the idea of granting rights to derive modified works and
redistribute to be quite alien. It's not uncommon to hear the same
arguments against freedom presented anew from such people that were
discarded a decade ago in the field of programming.
So, I would *not* assume that the DFSG freedoms are implied in a
statement of "totally free" from a statement not already known to have
> Since it's not clear that we've actually been granted the rights that
> we need, we should in general assume that we haven't.
> All of that said and done, if the copyright holder actually means
> for the work to be DFSG free, using a license that is trivially
> understood to be DFSG free is ideal.
Yes. Perhaps the original poster can communicate this upstream?
\ “Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.” |
`\ —Henry L. Mencken |