Maarten de Boer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If you want to allow just about any use of the work, while still > > retaining copyright, you can distribute your work under the Expat > > license. > > > > <URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt> > > Which also talks explicitely about software...
That's only a problem if your definition of "software" is too narrow to include "any information stored digitally". Note that one reason I recommended the terms of that license for your photographic work is that it doesn't mention "source" or "program". > Ok, so you do consider these pdphoto.org 'public domain' photos > DFSG-compatible? Please post the text of the license you want examined here (or, better, start a new thread specifically about that license) so that it can be discussed in context. > Sorry, GFDL. The GFDL, aside from its historical problems with DFSG-freeness, seems even less suitable to a photographic work, since it includes a great deal of verbiage irrelevant to a work consisting entirely of a single graphic image. > Is there no license which talks about images or photos? A pretty common (though not unanimous) definition of "software" is "information stored in digital form". (This is a much clearer definition than "programs", because it's not at all clear where the border between programs and other digital information lies.) If you, the copyright holder, use this definition as matching your work, then most free software licenses can be applied without changing that term. > Do you have any other suggestions of free licenses? I'd prefer to ask: what actions are permitted under the Expat license that you want to restrict? -- \ "If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let | `\ 'em go, because, man, they're gone." -- Jack Handey | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
