2008/11/5 <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org>rg>:
2008/11/4
<psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org>rg>:
You know, if you say "this work is under
free art license"
There is no requirement that you say that. The following fulfills the
terms of the license
"This work is available under the terms of the license that may be
found at
www.example.com/dfklhg."
As long as that URL is active at the moment of distribution that is a
legit approach.
Are you sure ? From the license :
To benefit from the Free Art License, you only need to mention the
following elements on your work:
[Name of the author, title, date of the work. When applicable, names of
authors of the common work and, if possible, where to find the originals].
Copyleft: This is a free work, you can copy, distribute, and modify it
under the terms of the Free Art License
http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
That is the user guide. While that is how a normal person might do it
that is not how an abusive one would.
"specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either
initial or subsequent)."
This is unclear
Why ?
Poor phrasing. I think you mean to say where every previous version of
the work can be accessed but it is unclear if you actual means that.
Also presents problems if the original has been destroyed.
What else could the license (not me) means ?
The idea of subsequent originals is a little odd in english.
If the original has been destroyed, well you may just
say it has been
destroyed and can't be accessed anymore, musn't you ?
But there is no way to know if that is allowed under the license.
Well, IMNAL, if I buy the Joconde, can I burn it ?
Under UK law yes. This happens from time to time with less significant
works. There is an art movement in the US where people by paintings at
garage sales and the like and make changes to them.
No it
won't. Common law and Napoleonic code systems react very
differently to moral rights. Since wikipedia is US based (US law
pretty much ignores moral rights) adopting a license that appears to
assume the existance of strong moral rights would be a bad move.
I don't know, I didn't red the Berne Convention, I'll do. Did you already
read it yourself ?
Yes but not significant. Common law and Napoleonic code systems treat
the same set of Berne Convention inspired laws very differently.
On short term maybe, who knows. But as long as CC will
be a source of
confusion on what free/libre license means, I'm afraid it will hurt the
community. Maybe I'm wrong, and lets hope I am, but facts tends to tell me
otherwise.
And the other thing is that if you place wikipedia under any license, this
license will rise in popularity. CC gained popularity with their non-free
licenses, do we really want to see wikepedia assimilated in this "free
like free beer state of mind" movement ?
The lack of popularity of the GFDL suggests otherwise. It is true yes
that with the wikipedia switchover CC licenses will become the
effective standard.
If CC would drop their non-free licenses and make
compatibility efforts, I
would be very happy with wikipedia switching to a CC license.
Of course, this is just hypothetical consequences, only the futur where it
is chosen to go this way may say real consequences. Maybe this would lead
people to use more CC-by-sa and let others CC licenses die. Nevertheless,
this choice may be done with all possible consequences in mind.
Kind regards,
Mathieu Stumpf
CC-BY-NC and ND are unlikely to die but I suspect there will over time
be an increased understanding of the differences between free and
semi-free licenses. Dropping wikipedia onto the free side of the line
should help with that.
--
geni