On 3/1/2016 11:41 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
On 2 Mar 2016, at 4:35 PM, J. Landman Gay
<jac...@hyperactivesw.com> wrote:
Does that sound right to all you guys who read up on this stuff?
I believe any media or other content (whether separate files or not)
distributed with the application and/or required to make it function
fully would need to be licensed in a GPL compatible license.
Two hypotheticals:
1. I create a viewer app to display my original artwork as part of my
job-seeking resume. The viewer seems useful so I decide to distribute it
to others so they can make their own resumes. I include at least some of
my artwork in the distribution so that potential users can see how the
app works, but I don't want them to use my artwork in their own resumes.
I decide to license my artwork restrictively, but the viewer app is GPL.
I would think separate licensing in that case would be okay. The app
doesn't depend on my particular artwork, it only needs something to
display. (I know I could include media that is public domain instead,
but that's not the point.)
2. I create an app that teaches the history of medieval art. The artwork
is mostly public domain, but some of the illustrations, maps, whatever
are my own creations. The stack doesn't work without the media, and the
text in the app describes it. In that case I need to license everything
as GPL because the app isn't functional without the supporting files.
Yes?
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
