On Thu, 4 May 2006 02:09:51 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:18:32 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > > > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if > > > > that is DFSG-free. > > > > > > I believe that it is. > > > > If you do, could you please reply to my analysis with an actual > > rebuttal? > OK. > > This license *has* to be read in the context of physical artwork. For > an all-digital artwork, it has lots of redundant, unnecessary > clauses.
Maybe, but I don't think it's clearly stated... At least, the FSF does not mention this caveat in its license list: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses Anyway, let's assume it's for physical works of authorship only (if this is true, we are quickly going off-topic here, since Debian users cannot aptitude install physical objects...). > > Suppose the Mona Lisa were licensed under this license; I will give > examples using it as I go through your comments. Oh my goodness... We are lucky that copyright did not exist when Leonardo Da Vinci was alive! ;-) > > You wrote earlier: > > > > - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the > > > originals (original and subsequent). > > > > I'm a little concerned that this could mean that, in order to > > distribute a work under this license, I forever required to keep > > updated information on where recipients can access every previous > > version. > Not quite. Remember what "originals" means in the context of this > license: it means a single copy, normally of a physical artwork. > > It *does* mean you would be forever required to keep updated > information on where recipients can access the original artwork. > > (For the Mona Lisa, the answer would be The Louvre.) For a less famous work it would be harder to tell! > > The freeness of this is arguable. I think it's supposed to be > primarily a form of attribution or credit, and it doesn't seem > unreasonable to me. It would be if it stated something along the lines of: | - specify to the recipient where *you were* able to access the | originals (original and subsequent). It instead forces me to track down any movement of the original work. > However, it may be overbroad. Convince me. > Perhaps keeping track of the movements of the Mona Lisa as it's sold > to different museums *is* unreasonable. That is exactly what I'm concerned of: since it says "specify to the recipient where *he will be* able to access the originals", it's the future it's talking about. It could even be unsatisfiable, strictly speaking, because I cannot specify *today* where the recipient will be able to access the originals *in the future*. But even ignoring that, it seems that I'm at least required to update this datum everytime I distribute, interpret or represent the work... I'm not a detective, how can I be forced to keep track of where every original work I want to distribute (a copy of) goes? > > > What if the original changes, say, URL? Have I to keep track of > > where it goes? > This is literally impossible. The original is a single copy, not a > work. If it changes URL, you are most likely looking at a different > copy. :-) OK, forget about the URL: s/URL/museum/ > > > What if the original vanishes? > Now, *this* is a problem. Since the original is a single copy, the > vanishing of that copy is a big issue. I believe, however, that "The > original has been destroyed; nobody at all can access it anywhere" > should be sufficient to satisfy this clause. This should be drafted > better to clarify this issue. This is a freeness issue indeed, if > such a clause is not sufficient. I'm not sure that such a statement would be considered enough to go away with the destroyed original case... So, indeed, I think this is another problem. > > This is, again, clearly intended for physical artwork. I'm not > entirely sure *how* to apply it to artwork which originated in > digital form. > > I believe the only logical interpretation of the license is that an > all-digital work might have *no* "original" at all in the sense of the > license. Recall the definition of "The Original": > > > - 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. I think it can make sense for non-material works too. > (Incidentally, I have no idea what "of its partition" means here. > "Its program" seems designed to refer to dance or theatre works.) I think it's talking about a musical score (in italian: "partitura"; probably similar in french, I don't know). [...] > > Have I to keep a copy of the original and > > make it available, in order to be able to distribute a subsequent > > work? > Stop thinking about copies. :-) Copies are no good regarding the > "original". OK. > > > > 3. INCORPORATION OF ARTWORK > > > > > > All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is > > > why you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and > > > subsequents) into another work which would not be subject to this > > > license. > > > > This does not seem to be clearly drafted, IMHO. > This is clearly drafted, but you have to remember that "originals" > refer to specific physical instances. You may not integrate the Mona > Lisa into another work which is not subject to this license. You can > do whatever you like with *copies* of the Mona Lisa; that's not what > this clause is about, it's about the originals. OK. [...] > The point to remember about this license is that it is specifically > designed for physical works which have a unique physical original; as > long as you remember that when reading the word "original", it makes > sense. If you don't notice that, the license won't make any sense. > > It is still somewhat fuzzily written, Indeed. > but I think none of the points > are actually freeness issues. I think we spotted some DFSG-freeness issues. Moreover you are pretty sure that this license is not really suitable for non-material works of authorship, and that is another issues (taking into account that the license was originally mentioned in a thread about gnome-theme licensing!). -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpWnvz75DiSM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
