Anthony DeRobertis wrote: >> The Original (the work's source or resource): >> A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of >> its program which the originator provides as the reference for all >> future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions. > > wtf? This definition does not make sense.
In the context of electronic works, no. I believe that it makes more sense for physical "pieces of art", in which case it is meaningful to distinguish "The Original" from a copy of the original. >> 2.3 Freedom to Modify >> >> You have the right to modify the copies of the originals (original and >> subsequent), partially or otherwise, respecting the conditions set out >> in article 2.2 , in the event of distribution (or representation) of the >> modified copy. The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you >> the right to modify the original under the same conditions as the copies. > > This is confusing, but appears to grant permission to modify the work, > at least in all cases we care about. I'm not sure what it means to only > modify a copy (because I can't figure out the definition of original, > above), but at least (as has been mentioned) with electronic works, > copies are very easy to make. I think it's a strange way of saying "the author may or may not incorporate your changes". > PS: Please get a better translation of this license. Agreed. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
