On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:00:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > I respectfully disagree: I am convinced that the GNU GPL is far better > than any CC license, for both programmatic and non-programmatic works. > > But that's not the point, anyway. > What I was trying to say was just that having those files under > GPL-compatible terms would erase any possible doubt (and also enable > other potential uses that are currently forbidden). Please don't spread FUD against the CC license set when it'll be perfectly fine. (quite literally F.U.D. in this case). The CC licenses are perfectly fine, no matter how much you disagree. > > In addition, this is an absurd claim to start; the GIMP is GPL-3, can we > > not edit CC-BY-SA images in the GIMP? The GIMP reads these files at > > runtime, too! > > Once again, that's not what I said. I don't see how you can draw a distinction between a data file being loaded and an image being edited. Anyway, end-of-thread for me, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature