[Clipart] Posibility of GPL
ted at gould.cx
Fri Jun 18 08:10:10 PDT 2004
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 05:02, Rob Myers wrote:
> I don't think public domain's a good idea because it doesn't grow
> value. But I appreciate that any license that would require work
> that includes Open Clip Art to be Open would be unusable for
> commercial work. Possibly LGPL would be better than GPL, or some
> sort of dual licensing.
In short, no. I think that to really understand you have to think of
the practical reality of using the artwork.
Let's say that we used something like LGPL, so any derivative work would
have to be LGPL also? So if I make a presentation and use OCAL, then
that presentation would have to be available to anyone I show it to?
That doesn't really work.
Let's say we did a creative commons license with attribution (which is
the issue here I believe). Then, if I built a poster with OCAL I'll
have to have little text at the bottom talking about every piece of art
in it and who did it? That won't really work either. I doubt that OOo
would include it just because it would confuse users.
As far as dual licensing goes, why would anyone download it with any
other license than the most liberal? By putting any of the licenses as
Public Domain, effectively all others are null.
Now, I don't mean to start a licensing argument here, those are rarely
productive (and I don't see OCAL as changing it's license). But, I'm
just trying to illustrate a few of the issues (and why I think that PD
is appropriate for this project).
BTW: I'm a huge GPL supporter for software, and definitely see the value
that it builds. In that case the restrictions that the GPL puts are on
developers, not users. In OCAL that line is drawn drastically
differently, where all users are 'developers' of derivative works.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the clipart