> [: Adriaan de Groot :] > I recently argued (elsewhere) that the GPLs in the context of artwork are > basically CC-BY. [...]
If that was a public argument, could you point to it? I would imagine that GPL in the context of artwork is essentially CC-BY-SA on the output (final) image *plus* CC-BY-SA on its layered or vector source. Especially so for GPL 3, with its "preferred form [...] for making modifications" formulation. And then I've seen that -SA in the first part makes many artists' skin crawl, and the second part makes them perplexed, as in "are you insane"? :) So, indeed, unless the artist grasps the full consequences of GPL, he should rather release the output image under CC-something (where if that -something is not -BY-SA, it could cause some distros to eliminate their work from free sections). -- Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
