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

Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?



On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:15:58 -0400 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:

> 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.

CC licenses may be "perfectly fine" in *your* opinion.
Apparently in many other people's opinion, too.
But they are not in *my* opinion.

I think I have a right to have my own opinion and to express it
publicly, as long as I clearly describe it as my *own personal* opinion.

> 
> > > 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.

I am not drawing a distinction between the two cases.

I just said that, if all files were licensed in a mutually compatible
manner, there would be no doubt about possible license compatibility
issues. Which should be quite obvious, shouldn't it?


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpCc8H4BLHKz.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: