On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:41:18 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > Since version 1.2 included an auto-upgrade clause, I was very > interested in analyzing the version 1.3, in the hope that the > previously mentioned issues could be fixed with this new license text.
Here's my own comments. As usual, IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. (If these disclaimers are useless/not-enough/ludicrous/awkward/whatever, please come to an agreed conclusion on what a poor contributor should do in order to participate in this mailing list discussions!) > Free Art License 1.3 [...] > 2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO PERFORM IN PUBLIC [...] > specify to the recipient the names of the author(s) of the originals, > including yours if you have modified the work, This might forbid anonymous works or anonymous modifications, which is non-free, IMO. > specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either > initial or subsequent). This condition is a little improved with respect to the corresponding one in the Free Art License version 1.2. However, I am still a little concerned that this could mean that, in order to distribute a work under this license, I am required, as long as I go on distributing, to keep updated information on where recipients can access every previous version. What if the original changes, say, URL? Have I to keep track of where it goes? What if the original vanishes? Have I to keep a copy of the original and make it available, in order to be able to distribute a subsequent work? Both these requirements seem to be non-free. [...] > 2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY [...] > distribute the subsequent work under the same license or any > compatible license. This condition appears to be poorly drafted, since it could be interpreted to mandate distribution as a requirement to get the permission to modify. Under this interpretation (which I think was not intended), this license would force modifiers to distribute their modified versions, even when they would rather keep them private. Forced distribution is a non-free restriction, IMO. [...] > 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. [...] > 9. VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE LICENSE > This license may undergo periodic modifications to incorporate > improvements by its authors (instigators of the “Copyleft Attitude” > movement) by way of new, numbered versions. > You will always have the choice of accepting the terms contained in > the version under which the copy of the work was distributed to you, > or alternatively, to use the provisions of one of the subsequent > versions. Please note that this is an auto-upgrade clause. Not a freeness issue by itself, but something to keep in mind anyway. In summary, this license seems to be *intended* to be a Free copyleft one (but incompatible with GPLv2 and GPLv3). There are some issues though that seem to make it fail. It's not a license that I would recommend, because of its issues and lack of clarity. -- 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
pgpuyMzdMoKzZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
