[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Thread Index]
Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] Example Licences
- From: Alex Bligh <alex@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:11:19 +0100
- Subject: Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] Example Licences
--On 17 August 2006 10:17 -0700 Carl Worth <cworth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:45:42 +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
I don't think you can GPL a design - the language doesn't make sense.
What language doesn't make sense? In version 2 you can see things like
"program or other work" and "source code for a work means the
preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". So terms
such as "program" and "source code" are explicitly defined to apply to
works other than software. (And the drafts of version 3 of the GPL do
a better job about putting these definitions up front). The
application of those definitions to a Xara design look very natural to
There's an opinion paper up at gnu.org with a 1997 date that
explicitly states the applicability of the GPL to non-software works:
It even recommends an alternate licensing blurb than the one most
frequently used with software works.
Well (e.g.) from the link you provided:
Finally, for non-software works the "copyright" line included at
the start of the "source code" of the work is modified in language
The whole thing seems to presume something called "source code" exists
for these designs, as a concept different from "binary form".
I think the GPL is the thing. Debian certainly contains thousands of
examples of pieces of GPL-licensed artwork, (image files, etc.),
within packages that are predominantly software.
It isn't clear (at least to me) that it makes sense, and indeed
what the potential licensor's obligations are. I suppose one
way to resolve this is to dual-license it under the GPL and the
CC licenses. Then anyone worried about the non-free aspect can opt
for the GPL if they can make head or tail of the obligations there.
Anyone preferring a license better suited to non-software works can
use the CC license.
Here's one place where one can find thousand of examples of
"predominantly non-software" works released under the GPL. Here's a
link to the category of GPL-licensed themes available from
Sadly, the fact people X put Y under license Z does not mean license
Z is effective for the purpose people X thought it would be.