[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons

Hi all,

> There's no real reason why the GPL itself would not be suitable. In
> fact, in most cases, it's what you actually want, because having the
> prefered form of modification for the images and audio avaiable is the
> best thing to help make minor changes and bug fixes to artwork and/or
> audio. [It wouldn't be the first time that spelling errors, color
> errors, mixing problems, et al. had to be fixed.]
We've had a better look at the GPL and it does seem quite suitable. However,
I'm not completely sure I'm reading it right, so allow me to share my

As some background, the works we are licensing are graphics for a game. These
are mostly created through 3D modeling. For this, mostly Blender files are
rendered into the pcx bitmap format. These pcx files are sometimes manually
post processed, and sometimes pcx files are created directly.

Now, we are considering GPLv2, since the game itself is licensed as such. In
GPLv2, section 3 is the "if you distribute binary, you must also distribute
source" clause. However, this is worded such that it is only applicable when
distributing the work in "object code or executable form". Since we're working
with graphics, it is higly unlikely that this will ever be the case, so
section 3 will not be applicable to our case normally. Is this indeed correct?

This means that the source requirement is never applicable, and any derived
work can be modified and distributed in any form freely, as long as the result
is again GPL licensed. As far as I can see, this does allow people to take the
blender "source" files, modify them and then distribute only the resulting pcx
bitmaps, witholding the (modifie) blender "sources", right?

So, in effect this means that using the GPL for our graphics will ensure that
the graphics will stay free and available form modification, in whatever
format the original authors supplied them. It will not prevent possible misuse
of the graphics, but that is not a real problem (and somewhat harder to
prevent, thouh GPLv3 might do a decent job).



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: