[Foundation-l] GFDL 1.3 Release

[geni]

2008/11/4  <psychoslave at culture-libre.org>:
> 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.


>> "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.

>>
>> "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 fundamentally inconstant with the principles of common law. If
I have legally acquired an original I am free to do whatever I like to
the original object such as burning it. There doesn't appear to be any
text in the license that removes this right.

> 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.


The definition of original is a complete mess but no matter. The point
I was making is that one difference in licensing terms between
distributing modified versions and copies is that for modified
versions you need to make it clear that it is in fact a modified
version. So if you can distribute a modified version as a copy that
requirement is dropped.



>>
>> 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.
>

Suppose I create a database of pure FAL content. Is the database
copyright released under the FAL?

>>
>> "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

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.


>>
>> 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.

Are you still trying to maintain FAL is clearly phrased?


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

So there is considerable benfit to wikipedia to improving
interoperability with CC but far lass so with FAL.


-- 
geni