5 Jul 2010 21:15
Free Art License?
I had my webcrawler out looking for media objects the other day and I found some under this license: http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en Is it my imagination or is this license compatible with CC-BY-SA?
5 Jul 2010 22:20
Re: Free Art License?
On 07/05/2010 08:15 PM, Paul Houle wrote: > I had my webcrawler out looking for media objects the other day and I > found some under this license: > > http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en > > Is it my imagination or is this license compatible with CC-BY-SA? Licences have to be *declared* compatible with CC-BY-SA. This was one of the licences that has been mentioned as potentially compatible in the past. But it has not been declared compatible yet. There are lots of little differences. The devil is always in the details... - Rob.
5 Jul 2010 23:25
Re: Free Art License?
It might not be a devil at all rob. It might just be that no one has had the time to get to this. Jon On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Rob Myers <rob@...> wrote: > On 07/05/2010 08:15 PM, Paul Houle wrote: >> >> I had my webcrawler out looking for media objects the other day and I >> found some under this license: >> >> http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en >> >> Is it my imagination or is this license compatible with CC-BY-SA? > > Licences have to be *declared* compatible with CC-BY-SA. > > This was one of the licences that has been mentioned as potentially > compatible in the past. But it has not been declared compatible yet. > > There are lots of little differences. The devil is always in the details... > > - Rob. > _______________________________________________ > cc-community mailing list > cc-community@... > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community > -- --(Continue reading)
- Rob.
6 Jul 2010 01:29
6 Jul 2010 08:09
Re: Free Art License?
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:29 AM, drew Roberts <zotz <at> 100jamz.com> wrote: > On Monday 05 July 2010 17:25:23 Jon Phillips wrote: >> It might not be a devil at all rob. It might just be that no one has >> had the time to get to this. > > One thing I don't like is French law ruling no matter where the "originating > artist" is. Yes, it can be problematic. Concrete case: "Concours 2010 « Décris-moi la citoyenneté numérique »" <http://www.ynternet.org/forumouvert/concours-2010-decris-moi-la-citoyennete-numerique>, is a writing competition in the context of 9e Forum eCulture in Lausanne, Switzerland. The Conditions de participation (pdf) <http://ynternet.org/forumouvert/conditions-concours-v3-1.pdf> state that the use of the LAL will be one of the 5 main assessment criteria the jury will use ("Critères principaux: ... 5. Vous avez mentionné en fin d'article qu'il est sous licence Art Libre (http://artlibre.org/) "). They further indicate that the competition is realized by "la fondation Ynternet.org, la HEPL du canton de Vaud et l'UNIL". Ynternet.org has always advocated the LAL, but it is slightly odd that official Swiss institutions like HEPL (Haute école pédagogique du canton de Vaud) and UNIL (Université de Lausanne) should accept an assessment criterium that imposes the use of a given license, moreover one for which French Law applies.(Continue reading)
RSS Feed