[Clipart] [OT] PD and Software
jon at rejon.org
Tue Apr 13 12:30:12 PDT 2004
Overall though, the proof of origination of the public domain license
insures that someone can go back to the original artwork (not altered in
format or graphically) and then move forward however they see fit.
I think this is a great way to go so that joe money can go and build a
composition and make dollars and close it off while mr. fsf can take and
make a composition and then put the GPL on it and call that work how it
Both of these don't change the original icon/symbol from being public
domain and existing in our OCAP repository. This is why I still vote for
On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 11:52, Glenn Randers-Pehrson wrote:
> At 02:19 PM 4/13/2004 -0400, cws456456 at aol.com wrote:
> >Kinda off-topic, kinda not...
> >We're getting into a lot of dicussions about Public Domain and various
> >liscences through which art could be released. Well I have a question.
> >Can Software be released to the Public Domain?
> Yes. I wrote lots of PD software when I was a Federal employee.
> >If so, wouldn't that be the most "free" and "open" way to release it?
> It is "free" but it is not "open" because anyone can take a copy and
> proprietize it. It happens to lots of gummint software; it gets
> taken private, modified, and sold back to the gummint at $5000/seat.
> >I think that woudl clear up a lot of the GPL, LGPL, BSD, QRS, TUV, WTH, CWS,
> >BOB etc etc ad nuseum... debates.
> >Just let evrybody have it. Absolutely no strings attached. No requirements
> >to include the source code. No "backwards-compatiblity" clauses.
> Art doesn't have a "backwards-compatibility" problem but it's an
> important part of software that can be ruined by putting in PD.
> There is much less of an argument against putting artwork in PD.
> Clipart mailing list
> Clipart at freedesktop.org
Visual Arts Department
PO BOX 948667
LA JOLLA, CA
jon at rejon.org
More information about the clipart