Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons
"Arc Riley" <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Karl Goetz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure at Linux.conf.au this year in the games miniconf,
> > someone from CC Australia was recomending the use of CC (-SA i think)
> > for game data, and said it didnt conflict with the GPL.
> I too have heard people from CC claim that CC licensed work was
> GPL-compatible. This disagrees with the FSF's position:
> IANAL, but I believe in the FSF's legal accuracy in this given that I've
> heard (possibly innocent) lies about the GPL spoken by CC people, such as
> the perpetuation of the "linking clause" myth and in great detail how the
> GPL doesn't cover non-instruction software such as icons and fonts. [...]
I agree. I would put *zero* weight on "people from CC" because of the
sheer number of incorrect legal opinions I've seen from CC supporters
(the most annoying of which was the exclusion of commercial actors
from the UK Ltd Co). I respect a few CC people's legal expertise, but
most of them couldn't tell a valid copyright licence from a hole in
the ground if it hasn't got a round CC sticker on it. They're far
worse than debian developers like that.
In response to the original poster: I'd GPL the game data. The GPL is
really quite clever in its definition of "Program" and copes fine, as
far as I've ever seen.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct