[Clipart] Clipart License

Glenn Randers-Pehrson glennrp at comcast.net
Tue Apr 13 05:24:36 PDT 2004

At 07:39 AM 4/13/2004 -0400, Daniel Carrera wrote:
>Glenn Randers-Pehrson wrote:
><snip: BSD-style license />
>>>If it does, I will contact Lawrence Lessig and ask him if he would be 
>>>willing to prepare a Creative Commons license which is essentially ammounts 
>>>to "all is permitted". 
>> CC already does.  Look at their page where you "choose a license".
>> There is Public Domain, Attribution (two flavors), GPL, LGPL.
>1) GPL and LGPL are *not* "all is permitted" BSD-style licenses.  And you 
>know it.

Yes I know that.

>2) Public Domain is not a license.

Sorry, I was simply listing what is on the page.

>3) Attribution licenses are *not* "all is permitted" licenses either.  They 
>require attribution.

In the equivalent
software licenses (BSD, zlib/libpng) it is only required to keep the
attribution info with the source, not the displayed result.  So,
putting the author and copyright info in a PNG text chunk would be
sufficient, and you wouldn't see it in printed or displayed copies.

If that isn't sufficient under the CC license, maybe CC could produce
a revised version ("source attribution" or "embedded attribution" or
something) where putting the attribution in a PNG text chunk or
equivalent would be OK.

If that's not possible, then I'd say stick with PD.


>I am talking about a BSD-style license without attribution.  The kind that, 
>in practice, permits everything that public domain, but the author still 
>holds the copyright.
>> The more generous of the "attribution" licenses seems appropriate.  It
>> is equivalent to BSD, MIT, and zlib/libpng licenses.
>Attribution is not acceptable for clipart.

Agreed, if "attribution" means displaying the author/copyright info
alongside the clipart wherever it is used.


More information about the clipart mailing list