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

Re: Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3



On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:55:44 +0530 Mahesh T. Pai wrote:

> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> writes:
> 
>  > This might forbid anonymous works or anonymous modifications,
>  > which is non-free, IMO.
> 
> Why so?

Which is the part you're asking clarifications about?

If you are asking "why might this forbid anonymous
works/modifications?", then my reply is:
because specifying the names of authors and of modifiers is a condition
to get the permission to distribute, and the license text could be
interpreted to mean that nicknames and/or the term "anonymous" don't
qualify as "names".

If you are instead asking "why do you consider forbidding anonymous
works/modifications as a non-free restriction?", then my reply is:
because being forced to disclose one's identity may be a significant
restriction on modification (DFSG#3) and a significant restriction on
redistribution (DFSG#1).
Please note that, among other things, the original author could be
anonymous (since he/she is not bound by the license he/she chooses),
and hence I could even ignore the "names of the author(s) of the
originals": in that case, it seems that I cannot distribute in
compliance with the license, and hence I could even find myself with no
permission to distribute at all...

I hope this clarifies.


-- 
 On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND
 "nano-documents" may lead you to my website...  
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpBhpHgk74VP.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: