[Foundation-l] GFDL 1.3 Release

[psychoslave at culture-libre.org]

> 2008/11/4  <psychoslave at culture-libre.org>:
>>> The GFDL is so opaque that no-one, not even its creators, understand
>>> it.
>>
>> Do you think that the CC-by-sa is any better ? I took me an afternoon to
>> read and more or less understand the CC-by in my native language
>> (french).
>> Seriously, compare yourself, read both CC-by-sa and FAL and tell me
>> honnestly which one you understood better. If you want to go in this
>> way,
>> the FAL is the better choice.
>>
>> But, once again, of course I'm partial. ;)
>
> FAL tends towards a fair degree of clarity yes but can trivially be
> broken by real corner cases:
>
> "attach this license without any modification to the copies of this
> work or indicate precisely where the license can be found"
>
> Looks good?  The problem kicks in with the "indicate precisely where
> the license can be found" apart from the "the license is at the bottom
> of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on
> the door saying "Beware of The Leopard"" problem is the time
> dependency. I give you a FAL licensed work with a URL where the
> license can be found. 30 seconds later the url goes inactive.
> Technically that meets the requirements of the FAL but not very
> useful.

You know, if you say "this work is under free art license", you can hide a
copy of the license where you want, anyone can find an other copy easily,
so this looks like a non-problem to me. The important information is that
the work is under FAS and that I can easily consult the license to know my
rights.


> "specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either
> initial or subsequent)."
> This is unclear

Why ?

>
> "The author(s) of the original work may give you the right to modify
> it under the same conditions as the copies. " appears to mean that you
> don't need to mention that you have made changes but is hardly clear.

No, it does not mean this. You can read the "original" and "copy"
definition again to convince yourself.

Here it means that, if doesn't tell otherwise, the author don't give you
any right on the original work. So if I make a painting under FAL, you
can't change my painting, but you can copy it and change your copy as you
like.

This is not so important with digital works, since it's rare you receive
the original work. That could be the case if the original work was saved
on a usb key and that the author give it to you, for example. But if you
download it from the internet, you already have a copy, and chances are
high that the file stored on the server is itself a copy of the original.

>
> Trying to work out how 3. RELATED RIGHTS  actually words with database
> copyight is somewhat complex.

Can you precise what exactly you find complex ? Of course there is some
specific vocabulary, the license have to have some. But frankly, it rests
largely human-readable.

>
> "Intellectual rights" section works fine under french law (I assume)
> but is less than idea under UK law

Being fine with the french law is all it need to be. The international
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works[1]
makes the rest. If the license works under the french law, it will work
the same way in UK.

[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works

>
> It is unclear if the "USER GUIDE" is actualy part of the license text
> since is partly contradicts the preceding license "if possible, where
> to find the originals" conflicts with sec 2.2  since you have to say
> where to find the originals in order to use the license.

It's because you have to provide this data with any copy, and if possible
you should mention it on the work itself. But if that's not possible, you
can provide it on an other support that you join with the work.

>
> In addition to that there is the factor that there is a lot more CC
> content around than FAL content.

So ?