[ox] Clarification on License_draft_1 (was: [pox] Re: License for a Wiki)
- From: "Thomas U. Grüttmüller" <sloyment gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:24:58 +0100
Hi Holger!
This seems to be on-topic. So, I am cross-posting this to [ox].
Am Donnerstag 24 März 2005 23:49 schrieb Holger Weiss:
Therefore, I'd
prefer a license which is as short, simple and non-restrictive as
possible. ThomasUG suggested this some time ago:
http://en.wiki.oekonux.org.uk/User:Sloyment/License_draft_1
(Though he prefers the GFDL now, if I understood him correctly.)
My position is that none of the existing copyleft licenses is usable for
music, poems, videos and other kinds of artwork. This means if I want to make
pieces of art truely free, I cannot put them under a copyleft license. So
there are open question:
* Would free artwork without copyleft be reproprieted at all?
* If so, how would that happen, and how could it be prevented without much
bueraucracy?
* Would it be worth the efford at all? I.e. would I want to drag violators
to court?
The license draft is only a skeleton. In its current state, it offers all
possible freedoms, as if the work was not copyrighted at all, but it's still
a license, so one could carefully build restrictions into it. I was thinking
of a soft copyleft: instead of the usual "Derivations can only be distributed
when they are licensed under the same license", there would be a clause:
"Derivations can only be distributed when the parts that are licensed under
the the terms of this license can be clearly separated from the rest of the
work."
- - - - -
As far as the wiki is concerned, I think we don't have a choice. If we want to
reuse GFDLed material made by others (At least I would like to do this) we
don't have the power to change the license of this material ourselves.
Using the GFDL for documentation is imho doable, but one should keep two
things in mind:
* It would be difficult for other people to reuse the material in artwork.
For example, a sung version of a Wikipedia article would be a pain in the
ass, because of the license.
* Debian considers the GFDL non-free. (And the CC licenses, too, BTW.)
If you care about these issues, you might consider dual-licensing your
contributions or putting them into the PD (if you don't plan to sue at all).
Bye,
Thomas }:o{#
- - - - -
(Ach Müll, jetzt hab ich auf Englisch geantwortet, obwohl ich es auf [ox]
posten wollte. Na ja, dann cross-poste ich es eben auch noch auf [ox-en].
Sucht euch aus, wo ihr antworten möchtet, falls jemand antworten möchte.)
________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Kontakt: projekt oekonux.de