* Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12/09/04, 11:42:42]: > Switching from the GPL to a GPL-incompatible license would probably > cause major problems to any other GPL-compatible work that would like to > reuse your work (in any way that creates a derivative work). > Creating barriers across the free software world is not a good practice > -- at least, not one I would recommend...
I totally agree here, but for problems I'll address later GPL doesn't really cut it for artwork, at least a lot of people I'm talking to think so. > I would suggest sticking to the GNU GPL. > I cannot see what is not clear with the GPL applied to artwork... Well, Section 3 of the GPL allows you to copy and distribute the work if you also distribute the source (or make it accesible, or the like). The source is defined as "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be for a piece of media. For a picture composed of multiple layers, it's a version with all the layers intact and seperate, but often, in the process of working on a multi-layer image, the artist will combine a set of layers to save ram and speed up the processing. Is that image still a source? Now, movies get even more tricky. A short movie clip often requires hours of raw material. Does everyone who wants to distribute the movie need to have gigabytes and gigabytes of raw movie scenes available? I'll gladly be convinced that I'm misinterpreting the GPL here. If this thread is off-topic for this channel, please reply to me personally. Cheers, Kai -- Kai Blin aka. nowhere (blin<at>gmx.net), WorldForge Project Web: http://www.worldforge.org/ Let a fool hold his tongue and he will pass for a sage. -- Publilius Syrus
