On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:02:40 +0200 Kai Blin wrote:
> I wanted a review of the license as we're considering switching the
> package sear-media and another media package that'll follow when our
> DD finishes the package to this license, the GPL being a bit unclear
> when used for artwork.
I would say "please, don't do that".
The Free Art License could even be judged DFSG-free (we don't know by
now, as there is not yet a clear consensus...), but it doesn't seem to
be a well worded license.
And it's clearly a GPL-incompatible license (being a copyleft license
that is not equivalent to the GNU GPL...).
Switching from the GPL to a GPL-incompatible license would probably
cause major problems to any other GPL-compatible work that would like to
reuse your work (in any way that creates a derivative work).
Creating barriers across the free software world is not a good practice
-- at least, not one I would recommend...
I would suggest sticking to the GNU GPL.
I cannot see what is not clear with the GPL applied to artwork...
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune
Francesco | Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple
Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes?
| 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape.
Attachment:
pgpnmv2RzzcKc.pgp
Description: PGP signature