14 Nov
2013
14 Nov
'13
9:03 p.m.
Le 14/11/2013 20:21, Robin Gareus a écrit :
On 11/14/2013 01:38 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
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.
Phil.
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
commons?
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
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/2013-June/034002.html
as well as on countless places on the web. Just use your favorite
search engine and continue at e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licenses
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
ciao,
robin