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