- Eric Schrijver
- Aurélie Commerce
- S V
- Anne Laforet
Of what you create, you’re the copyright holder by default. Even without putting © signs or special notices,—by default what you make falls under copyright. That means: for any kind of reuse of the material, someone needs to get your permission. When you write a licence, it’s a way of saying: you can reuse the files, under these conditions. I’ve got the right to these objects but I give the right to the others to transform it.
You use traditional law to do something else: to make clear under what circumstances you, as the copyright holder, are willing to share.
Constant licenceFree art license 1.3 http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en
For Constant it is important to have a licence that links to art history. The Free Art Licence is rooted in existing. It’s a manifesto/not a legal document (we understand the law — it’s written by artists, not by lawyers). The law must be written by “people” too, not only by lawyers.
What is important too, is that it does not have a non-commercial clause. We do not want to distinguish between professional and amateur, nor marginalise artistic practice that is not corporate.
OSP uses a more diverse range of licences, depending on the kind of elements which are shared. Many licences have been developed for one specific kind of work, but with OSP, there’s a lot of different kinds of work: fonts, images, websites, layouts, writings, scripts…
They try to have a specific licence for each specific kind of work:
- For software: Affero GPL v3 (software), https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
- “You can use my work, if you also let the licence for the common sharing” (the “strongest” licence of the General Public License)
- For written and visual work, the Free Art Licence 1.3 http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike, http://creativecommons.org
- For typeface, the SIL Open Font License, http://scripts.sil.org/OFL