Re: Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:48:32PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
> >> 5. COMPATIBILITY
> >> A license is compatible with the Free Art License provided:
> >> it gives the right to copy, distribute, and modify copies of the work
> >> including for commercial purposes and without any other restrictions
> >> than those required by the respect of the other compatibility
> >> criteria;
> >> it ensures proper attribution of the work to its authors and access
> >> to previous versions of the work when possible;
> >> it recognizes the Free Art License as compatible (reciprocity);
> >> it requires that changes made to the work be subject to the same
> >> license or to a license which also meets these compatibility
> >> criteria.
> > I think that, with these compatibility criteria, especially the last
> > two, the GNU GPL (v2 or v3) does not qualify as a "compatible" license,
> > unfortunately.
> > I am not aware of any other license that meets the DFSG and may be
> > considered a "compatible" license.
> According to the French Wikipédia page , it is compatible withe the
> Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA) v3.0 and a quick search made
> me find a document proposed with both this licences 
> 2: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Art_Libre
> We (as in the www-team working on including Kalle's design to the
> website and many other part of Debian for Squeeze release) would really
> like to know if we can consider this license DFSG compatible, or if we
> really need to ask Kalle to change it.
Out of curiosity, I looked at the GNU License list and found the Free
Art/Art Libre license . As it turns out, the FSF lawyers have already
stated that this license, while free, isn't GPL-compatible.
IMHO (very humble, actually), I don't see where this license isn't
DFSG-compliant, but I am able to understand the French version, and have
to agree with David on the inaccuracy of the translation. Is the text of
the license included with Kalle's work the English or the French one ?
I also assume the license forces the www-team to package the licenced
stuff into a separate package. Am I correct, and would it be easily