Sai Emrys wrote: >>Can I suggest, in the collaborative and open spirit of the design process, >>one of the Gnu licenses? If there's a way to identify the list en masse as >>the original authors (or somehow its membership as of the day of the >>election), I think that would be fitting. > > > Might I counter-suggest the Creative Commons by-nc-sa license? More > appropriate to such a work, methinks. Although I did not take part in its original design, I'd like to object to the "nc" part of that licence. CC by-sa is essentially the same as a GPL/GNU-style licence, more-or-less providing freedom restricted only by the proviso that freedom may not be further restricted. In any case, I hardly think anyone's going to try to abuse anyone's effort: The target market is quite small and I expect anyone who starts out with it commercially will probably be one of us, and try to give something back to the community. And if, on the other hand, someone completely unrelated to us *does* commercialise it in ways completely unrelated to conlanging, who knows: maybe it'll act as advertising. I would therefore recommend the CC by-sa licence, if a CC licence is to be chosen. However, my real recommendation is the Free Art Licence (it's also the one the FSF/GNU project recommend for art when the original GPL or the GNU Free Documentation Licence are inappropriate). This would help avoid confusion by the proliferation of CC licences. I think the wording and theory behind the Free Art Licence is also more appropriate to the creation as I understand it of the flag---but again, I wasn't active at the time. Take a look at it: <http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/> (FWIW, it seems to me that the original, if it is the first babel-sun design, is Leland Paul's at <http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0409A&L=CONLANG&P=R23504&D=0&I=-3> and that Christian's modifications count as a Subsequent Work.) -- Tristan.