Re: A GPL-compatible license for photos and music. Which?
Francesco Poli wrote:
> The only (recommended) copyleft license that is GPL-compatible is the
> GNU GPL itself. Current version is 2.0:
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt
Is it the same I got doing "man gpl"?
I see that there is a license "for artworks" that is called to be the
"GPL for art". I'm talking about the "Free Art License":
http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
In the license FAQ (in french... and my french is poor but better
than the free-online-translation-services' french) I can't find if this
licence is compatible with GPL or not (as a Debian user is also
interesting to know if this license is DFSG compatible).
It's obvious that releasing my works in GPL would be great. Not only
because GPL *IS* the copyleft license, but also because I would avoid
differente license proliferation... a thing that makes really hard the
task to choose a license for a work: it is not acceptable that choosing
the right license should take so many time (time that is better to use
to create content).
After reading your reply I decided to release under GPL, the only doubt
I got now it's only about the fact that GPL is not "dedicated" to
artworks... that's why I also ask an opionion about the "Free Art
License".
The copyleft attitude is ok for me: I think that every cultural work
belongs to its contemporaries, just because that work spawned from its
contemporaneity.
[ok, stop, I'm falling in philosophy and maybe this is not the right
place]
Thank you and thanks to all the others that replied to my question.
Bye
Jenner
--
** http://neurotix.com
** jenner(a)neurotix.com
Reply to: