Francesco Poli wrote: > The only (recommended) copyleft license that is GPL-compatible is the > GNU GPL itself. Current version is 2.0: > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt
Is it the same I got doing "man gpl"? I see that there is a license "for artworks" that is called to be the "GPL for art". I'm talking about the "Free Art License": http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ In the license FAQ (in french... and my french is poor but better than the free-online-translation-services' french) I can't find if this licence is compatible with GPL or not (as a Debian user is also interesting to know if this license is DFSG compatible). It's obvious that releasing my works in GPL would be great. Not only because GPL *IS* the copyleft license, but also because I would avoid differente license proliferation... a thing that makes really hard the task to choose a license for a work: it is not acceptable that choosing the right license should take so many time (time that is better to use to create content). After reading your reply I decided to release under GPL, the only doubt I got now it's only about the fact that GPL is not "dedicated" to artworks... that's why I also ask an opionion about the "Free Art License". The copyleft attitude is ok for me: I think that every cultural work belongs to its contemporaries, just because that work spawned from its contemporaneity. [ok, stop, I'm falling in philosophy and maybe this is not the right place] Thank you and thanks to all the others that replied to my question. Bye Jenner -- ** http://neurotix.com ** jenner(a)neurotix.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
