Re: Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3 (original) (raw)
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Cc: Kalle Söderman <kalle.soderman@gmail.com>
- Subject: Re: Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3
- From: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 17:16:15 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20110123171615.a3ef50e6.frx@firenze.linux.it>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 4D3B5900.6020806@altern.org>
- References: 20090125124118.6c36139e.frx@firenze.linux.it 20090125125501.277c8a05.frx@firenze.linux.it <[🔎] 4D379470.8000007@tilapin.org> <[🔎] 20110120022446.GB10146@beldin> <[🔎] 4D3B5900.6020806@altern.org>
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:24:00 -0400 David Prévot wrote:
[...]
Le 19/01/2011 22:24, Simon Chopin a écrit :
Hi !
Hi all, Kalle CCed,
Hello! I am also CC:ing Kalle.
[...]
IMHO (very humble, actually), I don't see where this license isn't DFSG-compliant,
Please see my analysis: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/01/msg00119.html and my recent reply: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2011/01/msg00042.html
but I am able to understand the French version, and have to agree with David on the inaccuracy of the translation.
The inaccurate English translation is a flaw in itself.
[...]
I also assume the license forces the www-team to package the licenced stuff into a separate package. Am I correct, and would it be easily doable ?
Actually, the website itself is not packaged, so it doesn't need to comply with the DFSG
It doesn't need to, since it's not part of the Debian system (see the Social Contract), but I think it should be as close to DFSG-free as possible (ideally perfectly DFSG-free). See also http://bugs.debian.org/238245
(well, where would the Debian Logo go? ;-),
Oh, let's not open that can of worms within this thread, please: it would drive the discussion far far away... The Debian Logo license issue has been discussed several times on debian-legal and elsewhere, so let's avoid mixing two mostly unrelated topics.
but the question remains to include Kalle's design in a package like installation-guide.
Good question: in that case, it would be greatly appreciated if Kalle's design were licensed under GPL-v2-compatible terms.
Kalle, would it be OK for you to publish your design under a double license (e.g. Free Art License 1.3 and GPL if this is possible)?
I would also like to express my personal desire to see Kalle's design licensed (or at least dual-licensed) under the GNU GPL v2. Please, Kalle, consider doing so!
-- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:<pgpaDFVj1U8CH.pgp>
Description: PGP signature
Reply to:
- References:
- Re: Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3
* From: David Prévot david@tilapin.org - Re: Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3
* From: Simon Chopin chopin.simon@googlemail.com - Re: Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3
* From: David Prévot davidp@altern.org
- Re: Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3
- Prev by Date:Re: Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3
- Next by Date:situation of imapsync and Debian (was: Re: Bug#609845: huge memory leak when syncing large mailboxes)
- Previous by thread:Re: Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3
- Next by thread:Re: Analysis of the Free Art License 1.3
- Index(es):