Re: photo licenses
Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Maarten de Boer <email@example.com> writes:
> > Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > <URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>
> > Which also talks explicitely about software...
Yes, if one wants to license people to copy the non-software original
image, rather than a software copy of it, then it probably needs some
other terms. All the stuff about access and handling of the original
will probably need to be addressed.
However, if you're licensing a png, jpg, xcf or whatever, that licence
should be sufficient for copyright. IANAL, so consult one if you're
> 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.
It may be even worse: impossible. The FDL requires each copy to 'Include
an unaltered copy of this License' (4.H), which will probably make the
image ugly, bloat the comment section of the file format by 19k or simply
be impossible as an image file. The F *Documentation* License is very
clumsy for anything apart from tutorial manuals. More so than GPL.
Hope that explains,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct