New Wallpapers
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
hey guys I have just created around 80 new desktop wallpapers (2560x1600) and would like to create a Trisquel and Debian compatible packages. Which license do you recommend for pictures itself to be published under? GPL v.3?
In the Attachment you can see how my Wallpaers look like, I hope you like them ;)
| Pièce jointe | Taille |
|---|---|
| wallpapers.jpg | 262.66 Ko |
The GNU GPL license does not really suits artistic works (what is its "source code"?). What about the famous Creative Commons BY-SA. The SA (for "ShareAlike") part is a copyleft (similar to GPL's copyleft).
GPL is normally used for works where source and binary are the same,
like shell scripts or bitmap graphics, it works as if the work was in
source form. CC-BY-SA is not sufficient if these forms are different:
it doesn't require making the source available to users of binary
versions. (It is a problem if you want to edit a PDF rendering of a
text (or a printed book) or bitmap rendering of 3D or vector graphics.)
There is a different issue: these licenses are incompatible and many
works use one of them. You might want to allow users to choose GPL or
CC-BY-SA (duallicense).
I was told that CC is delicate because there are many different versions and some of them allow the work to be used for comercial stuff. Please correct me, if I am wrong
Actually, you just touched a sensitive subject. Generally speaking, for a free artwork to be compatible with a free software, it's recommended to license it under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license.
It's not recommended to use the NonCommercial and NoDerivs variations of the Creative Commons licenses.
Best regards, ADFENO.
Have a nice day.
A wallpaper with the NonCommercial restriction couldn't be included in Trisquel, as it wouldn't be legal to sell[0] copies of the operating system.
so the best license for trisquel artworks/wallpapers seems to be CC BY SA 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
but what about the .deb packages itself is it okey tu publish it under the GPL?
The source code of a picture is the RAW-file or the unedited jpg-file so it could also be theoretically published under GPL?
I am a member!
Why not use the Free Art License for the wallpapers?
http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires