[WF-General] License Stupidity

MiguelGuzmán aglanor at teleline.es
Tue Apr 16 02:58:47 PDT 2002


    Well, I don't know if GNU could help, but novalis may know :) The thing here
is to see if a separate license is needed for Media. Of course you can use FDL
for media, the questions are if the differences between a manual and a picture
are worth creating a new license (for instance, they could have used the GPL for
manuals too, but they decided that manuals were different enough from source
code to create the FDL apart from the GPL, and designed them to be 100%

    I personally think that there are enough differences to make a separate
license. The proof is that the media people are gathering a series of
requirements that Worldforge art must meet, my point is: "instead of using FDL
with a whole bunch of requirements, take both the GPL/FDL spirit and those
requirements and make a new Free Media License".

    Regarding Al Riddoch mail, I think that you must comply with the spirit of
the license rather than with the exact wording, but if the number of ambiguities
is high, wouldn't be a specific license, if not more useful, at least more easy
to use?

    Take the example of the history: in a text document it's easy: you add a
chapter. What about an image? Wouldn't a simple clause help? Like, say,
(invented stuff) "the modified versions shall be distributed in a compressed
package, with an open compression method (like .gz) including a history.txt
plain text file with the changes noted". This way the modifier doesn't need to
wonder which is the preferred method to do things, he doesn't need to
extrapolate the FDL to other fields.

    But again, I'm not very expert on these fields so I'd like to know at least
some other opinions before starting writing something (I use to have bizarre
ideas so I always wait for people to knock me back to the ground before starting
anything :P). In any case, I'd start by gathering all the requirements for WF
art that people have proposed in these threads as a list of items, and reword
them later in legal writing). Haven't we lawyers here? :)



Wolf wrote:

> Mabye we don't need to know legaleese. The open-source movement/community
> always seems to be willing to help - Perhaps if we explained our problems to
> GNU they would write one for us. Think it's worth a shot?
> "Miguel Guzmán" <miguelg at tid.es> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1018866722.25726.general at mail.worldforge.org...
> > Hello,
> >
> >     This is an issue I've had many many times qith the GNU licenses and
> that I
> > would like one day to see defined. IANAL and that all stuff, so I can't do
> much
> > in this field, but the point is:
> >
> >         Licenses are tools, as tools they have a subject in which to be
> used.
> > You can't reap grain with a hammer, and you shouldn't use manual-intended
> > licenses for artwork.
> >
> >     The GPL is intended for free software code, and the FDL is intended
> for free
> > software manuals. That's their scope, they are real good at it, and we
> should'n
> > ask them for more that they can provide. Why isn't there a license for
> media?
> > Because it hasn't been needed ! GNU says that FDL can be used for media,
> but it
> > is merely an special case, and is not very well covered because GNU
> doesn't care
> > much for media (nor they should have to!). They're basically saying "sure,
> you
> > can use this for media, why not?" and just that.
> >
> >     Who is the project who cares for media? Us. So we should set the
> standard,
> > get all these points on this discussion and write a Free Media License,
> > compatible with the GPL and FDL but specially focused on images, sound and
> any
> > other media type.
> >
> >     I'd like to help, but as I said before I know no legalese. I can
> always
> > discuss stuff other, more professional people make :)
> >
> >     I'd like to add another point, again:
> >
> >     - There is some type of media that the author doesn't want to see
> changed.
> > Some of these may include a pencil drawing, an article of opinion or a
> literary
> > tale. There sould be some "Literacy License", or a clause on a Free Media
> > License (like in the OPL, but that licese is forsaken and people no longer
> work
> > on it) that forbids modification while maintaining all the other rights as
> > ditribution, reformatting, compilation, usage on free software code and
> manuals,
> > etc.
> >
> >     Regards,
> >
> >     Aglanor

More information about the General mailing list