Some artists unhappy with the wording of the (L)GPL are looking for free art licenses, with or without copyleft. What would your recommendations for such licenses be? The BSD or Artistic licenses look fine for the latter case, but how about the former? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
- Subject: Re: gnome-themes and licensing
- From: Thomas Wood <thos@gnome.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:00:01 +0100
- Message-id: <444FD141.80402@gnome.org>
- In-reply-to: <1145265307.4232.65.camel@utena.localnet>
- References: <4440E42B.1080202@gnome.org> <1145265307.4232.65.camel@utena.localnet>
Josselin Mouette wrote:Le samedi 15 avril 2006 à 13:16 +0100, Thomas Wood a écrit :Personally, I think it's understandable that artists may choose not to distribute their work under the (L)GPL, which is primarily a license for software. As long as the license they choose upholds the values of Free Software, I don't see it as a problem. However, I know there have been various lengthy discussions elsewhere about the status of the Creative Commons licenses, so I would like to have some advice before continuing.I think I would ask those people to wait for the 3.0 version of the Creative Commons licenses, which promise to solve a number of small issues[1] that were raised with 2.0 and which are still present in 2.5.Do you happen to know if there is any time scale for 3.0? I'd really like to get started on revamping gnome-themes, but I can't do it unless I can distribute the themes under a more appropriate license. If it's likely that a 3.0 CC license is not going to be available before 2.16, are there any other licenses that might be suitable to meet the needs of artists and distributors such as Debian?-Thomas
--- End Message ---