14 Nov
2013
14 Nov
'13
1:20 p.m.
Hello dear all LAUers.
Time ago I did some research about open source/free software licences:
types, pros and cons, etc. I'm reviewing it and, given that I follow
and love many of the great projects and applications coded by members
of this list, I would love to here you're opinions (pros, cons) and
experience in practice and why you chose X licence for your project(s)
(business model or enterprise view in mind, 'cause you like it...).
I see that the most commons are GPL2 (some don't like yet the v3) and
GPL3. And nowadays with so many services in the cloud also AGPL, and
MIT or Apache as well with HTML and Javascript libs and artifacts.
Thanks as always for sharing your work and knowledge.
--
Carlos sanchiavedraz
* Musix GNU+Linux
http://www.musix.es
14 Nov
14 Nov
1:38 p.m.
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?
8:04 p.m.
2013/11/14 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>et>:
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?
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
There's a Creative Commons type that I think is more or less
compatible with GPL, it would be CC BY, I think. So GPL for code + CC
BY for artwork should be a viable choice.
I'm not "legaly" 100% sure, but hope it helps.
--
Carlos sanchiavedraz
* Musix GNU+Linux
http://www.musix.es
8:09 p.m.
On 14 November 2013 12:38, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> 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
commons?
enjoy the artwork? what else needs to be done?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_%28art%29
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
8:21 p.m.
New subject: [OT] mixing CC and GPL -- was [semi-OT] Licences and your opinion and experience
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
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
9:03 p.m.
New subject: [OT] mixing CC and GPL -- was [semi-OT] Licences and your opinion and experience
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
15 Nov
15 Nov
9:13 a.m.
New subject: [OT] mixing CC and GPL -- was [semi-OT] Licences and your opinion and experience
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 20:21 +0100, Robin Gareus wrote:
The result cannot be distributed under either license.
That's what I wanted to know, thank you and everybody else. It can
happen that the basic icon is from a GPL'ed package, but something needs
to be added to the icon, that is licensed under the Creative Commons.
14 Nov
14 Nov
2:02 p.m.
On 11/14/2013 01:20 PM, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote:
Hello dear all LAUers.
Time ago I did some research about open source/free software licences:
types, pros and cons, etc. I'm reviewing it and, given that I follow
and love many of the great projects and applications coded by members
of this list, I would love to here you're opinions (pros, cons) and
experience in practice and why you chose X licence for your project(s)
(business model or enterprise view in mind, 'cause you like it...).
Software concerning infrastructure and inter-operation should *provide
freedom to the developer*. Less restrictive licensing (eg. MIT, BSD,
public-domain) is important to promote standards (in particular network
or communication protocols.)
Application software aimed at end-users should *protect the freedom of
the user*. Here GPL is appropriate. It ensures that any user will be
free to run it (which must include the freedom to modify it e.g. to make
it work on future systems,...) amongst other freedoms. From a developer
point of view the GPL also provides continuity and allows software to
evolve.
Personally I either choose the MIT or the GPLv2+ license for all of my
projects. The former for libs, the latter for apps (with the usual
exceptions, mainly due to re-using code and inheriting licenses). The
reason for those two is that they're the only two licenses that I have
read, understand and agree with.
I have no intention to spend any time reading all of the others licenses
cover-to-cover, and I believe that any developer who is using a given
license should at least have a basic understanding of [the implications
of] the license which mandates reading it completely.
I keep an open eye on [new] licenses but have not had any reason to
investigate any of them any further.
I see that the most commons are GPL2 (some don't
like yet the v3) and
GPL3. And nowadays with so many services in the cloud also AGPL, and
MIT or Apache as well with HTML and Javascript libs and artifacts.
Thanks as always for sharing your work and knowledge.
2c,
robin
4079
days inactive
4080
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Carlos sanchiavedraz -
James Morris -
Phil Hézaine -
Ralf Mardorf -
Robin Gareus