Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> If the original author puts a video under GPL and doesn't release
> the "source", you can't demand it. He's not bound by the GPL since
> he can't violate the copyright on his own work, so he has no
> obligation to give you anything.
This is the same problem that exists for any work under the GPL;
there's nothing special about recordings here.
> The problem with "source" for audio or video files is that the
> source is much larger and much more awkward to distribute than the
> final result. It's plausible that the author doesn't care what you
> do with his work, but doesn't want to give you these files simply
> because it's a lot of trouble.
If you as an author do not want to distribute the source (or more
importantly, require others who modify your source to do so) then you
should pick a license like MIT or expat.
The licensing line is fairly simple:
Do you want copyleft?
Yes: GPL (Maybe LGPL in some cases)
No: MIT/Expat
Don Armstrong
--
An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications.
-- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: