[LAU] [OT] mixing CC and GPL -- was [semi-OT] Licences and your opinion and experience
philippe.hezaine at free.fr
Thu Nov 14 20:01:20 UTC 2013
Le 14/11/2013 20:21, Robin Gareus a écrit :
> On 11/14/2013 01:38 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> I would like to know, what to do when e.g. icons are under the GPL and
>> they are edited and mixed with artwork, that is under the creative
> Now we're going from semi-OT to OT :)
> "Creative Commons" != "Creative Commons" you need to be very specific
> what version and variant you mean. CC-BY-SA v3.0 can be combined with
> the GPL, but in general the Creative Common License is not compatible
> with the GPL. The final product of the remix is unlicensed. Neither GPL
> nor CC applies. The result cannot be distributed under either license.
> However, you can distribute individual files. eg. one icon under CC and
> once icon under GPL in the same package. Each of the works is properly
> licensed independently. An interesting aspect is that you mix them at
> runtime. As long as you don't distribute the result (but only display
> it) it should be fine. but IANAL.
> Anyway this has been discussed in the past at great length - both here:
> search the list-archive for "Legalities" or "CC", "GPL", the most recent
> installment of which is
> as well as on countless places on the web. Just use your favorite
> search engine and continue at e.g.
My point of view for a user (not a developer) who shares his artistic
production is to use the Free Art license which is recommended by the FSF.
One great advantage of this license is to take the 'Berne's Convention'
into account. I think this isn't the case for CC.
in English: http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en
also in German, Spanish, Portuguese or Polish.
my 2 cents.
More information about the Linux-audio-user