[Foundation-l] GFDL 1.3 Release

[psychoslave at culture-libre.org]

> 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.

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/


>
>>> "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 ?

If the original has been destroyed, well you may just say it has been
destroyed and can't be accessed anymore, musn't you ?

>
>>>
>>> "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.

Well, IMNAL, if I buy the Joconde, can I burn it ?

>> 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.

So if you write "all or part of this work is a copy from [source] on which
some changes may have been added", you are always ok, aren't you ?

In any case this is a very interesting remark, thank you.

>
>
>
>>>
>>> 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?

You mean if the database structure under FAL if its content is under FAL ?
As I understand "4. INCORPORATION OF THE WORK", I would say no, since you
can access this data apart from the database and vice versa. If I put a
FAL work in a bag, it doesn't require the bag to be a FAL work.


> 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 ?


> Are you still trying to maintain FAL is clearly phrased?

At least, far clearer than any CC. Except if you count CC-public domain,
of course.

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

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 ?

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