blob: 13801c161e015f13a6d5d451bb93ef2fea92c283 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
|
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">
> 4. general artwork licence<br>
> --------------------------<br>
> Our artwork needs to be licensed. Therefore we decided to have a general<br>
> licence, which is valid for all work, that is not licensed especially. We<br>
> decided to use the Creative Commons 3.0 with attribution, non-commercial and<br>
> share-alike. If there are any concerns over this license, please let us<br>
> know.<br>
<br>
</div>Using Creative Commons licenses is an excellent option. But the<br>
NC/Non-Commercial clause is a no-go. It makes the thing licensed<br>
totally incompatible (in spirit and in detail) with FSF/OSI definition<br>
of free software/open source - thus makes redistribution/derivatives<br>
of the Mageia platform (and that's not what we want for the<br>
distribution).<br>
<br>
CC-By-SA is perfectly acceptable on the other hand (that's what would<br>
be the most like sort of a GPL translated for non-software works - and<br>
we use it for the wiki).<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>I dunno, something about doing lots of hard work for a good cause because we want to, and then somebody else packaging it for profit? That rankles.<br>I realize that CC-By-SA is more to the spirit of GPL, but it still rankles.<br>
Also, isn't Mageia a not-for-profit foundation? Who would redistribute the artwork for profit? Other devels/artists? That's even worse!<br>The point of allowing commercial software to be GPL'd (as I understand it) is to allow devels to profit from their hard work. But if we "work for" a not-for-profit organization, and we don't want any profit from the work anyway, then there's no point in allowing commercial redistribution!<br>
</div></div></div>
|
