Re: A GPL-compatible license for photos and music. Which?
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, NeuRoTiX wrote:
> I took a look to the Creative Commons but it seems to be a non
> GPL-compatible license.
Yes, most of the CC licenses (there are a few dozen of the things) are
not GPL compatible.
> I don't know if I can use the GPL itself because it's not possible
> to identify the source and the Program.
>
> So, which license I can use to release my works in order to let them
> GPL-compatibles?
In order for them to be GPL compatible, you'll have to figure out what
the prefered form for modification is for the photographs and the
music.[1] In most cases, this is the digital form of the work which
you would use if you were going to make modifications to the work.
[.xcf files, .mid sequence files with sounds, unmixed recordings,
etc.]
The actual license that the work is released under is the second
concern. Since GPL compatibility is a goal, your choice is primarily
whether you want the work to be copyleft or not. If not, an MIT style
license is probably the best bet. If it is, just use the GPL. [Since
you're the copyright holder, you can always dual license your work
too.]
> [I'm reading debian.legal thru Usenet, if you reply, please cc also
> on this email]
The easiest way to indicate this is to set Mail-Followup-To: to
something appropriate.
Don Armstrong
1: This is because anyone who is distributing these files as part of a
derivative work of a GPLed work will have to include the prefered form
for modification for all the parts of the derivative work.
--
In all matters of government, the correct answer is usually: "Do
nothing"
-- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p428
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: