hooray for freedo

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Dec 22, 2009, Rubén Rodríguez Pérez <ruben at gnu.org> wrote:

> I'm glad you liked it. You can find the image in wikipedia under the
> GNU FDL, as I granted when the uploader asked me. I think it should be
> also stated in the fsfla page if it is not already, so I'm sending it to
> the linux-libre list.

> Alexandre, can you change the text so it says the license is the same as
> per your image of the gnu+lux? Thanks.

Uhh...  Sorry it took me so long to react on this.  The only reason I'm
doing now is that @bleakgadfly asked on identi.ca, and it reminded me of
this pending thread.
http://identi.ca/conversation/28323641#notice-28371681

GNU FDL may be fine for on-line works, but I can't imagine printing the
GFDL1.1 or GPLv3 on stickers, banners, etc.  The only reason I chose
that for gnu+lux was that the meditating gnu it was based on required
it.

But I remember the meditating gnu was to be relicensed, *also* under
some ND license, to make room for easier uses in printing or so.  I'm
surprised the change hasn't happened yet.  Richard, do you know why
http://www.gnu.org/graphics/meditate.html still doesn't have the more
permissive licensing terms we discussed a while ago?

Anyhow...  If you, Rubén, say you license Freedo 0.9 ;-) under
GFDL1.1+|GPLv3+, I'd have to follow suit in the final Freedo, the
derived version Islene and I made, and existing T-shirts, buttons and
stickers, as well as Freed-ora and gNewSense/Lemote binary builds, would
amount to infringing uses.  I wish this wasn't so.  I had (naively,
perhaps) assumed more permissive terms for your contribution, very much
along the lines of Burnaron's original design.

So how about we settle on this instead:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this image under
the terms either:

1. the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
   Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any
   later version, or

2. the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version
   published by the Free Software Foundation; with the no Invariant
   Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts and with no Back-Cover Texts.

3. CC-BY-ND 3.0, with additional permission to omit the names of the
   authors (AFAIK Burnaron, you, Islene and myself) if the names Freedo
   or Linux-libre, or a URL for the Linux-libre web site, appears close
   to the image.

As an additional permission, whenever a derived work is distributed
under 1. and/or 2., the terms of CC-BY-ND 3.0, with or without the
additional permission in 3, and with or without the present additional
permission, can be offered as an alternative to 1. and/or 2.

Can anyone see any undesirable properties of this licensing arrangement?
Richard, you think the levitating gnu could be licensed under similar
terms? (with a suitable replacement of the details in 3., or removal of
the additional permission)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist      Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer