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:


(FWIW, it seems to me that the original, if it is the first babel-sun 
design, is  Leland Paul's at 
and that Christian's modifications count as a Subsequent Work.)