Re: photo licenses
Maarten de Boer <mdeboer@iua.upf.edu> writes:
> Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>
> > If you want to allow just about any use of the work, while still
> > retaining copyright, you can distribute your work under the Expat
> > license.
> >
> > <URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>
>
> Which also talks explicitely about software...
That's only a problem if your definition of "software" is too narrow
to include "any information stored digitally".
Note that one reason I recommended the terms of that license for your
photographic work is that it doesn't mention "source" or "program".
> Ok, so you do consider these pdphoto.org 'public domain' photos
> DFSG-compatible?
Please post the text of the license you want examined here (or,
better, start a new thread specifically about that license) so that it
can be discussed in context.
> Sorry, GFDL.
The GFDL, aside from its historical problems with DFSG-freeness, seems
even less suitable to a photographic work, since it includes a great
deal of verbiage irrelevant to a work consisting entirely of a single
graphic image.
> Is there no license which talks about images or photos?
A pretty common (though not unanimous) definition of "software" is
"information stored in digital form". (This is a much clearer
definition than "programs", because it's not at all clear where the
border between programs and other digital information lies.)
If you, the copyright holder, use this definition as matching your
work, then most free software licenses can be applied without changing
that term.
> Do you have any other suggestions of free licenses?
I'd prefer to ask: what actions are permitted under the Expat license
that you want to restrict?
--
\ "If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let |
`\ 'em go, because, man, they're gone." -- Jack Handey |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: