Re: [gNewSense-users] [Artwork] Is Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license acceptable for Official gNewSense Artwork?

[Dave Crossland]

On 12/11/06, Karl Goetz <address@hidden> wrote:
> Dave Crossland wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license acceptable for
> > Official gNewSense Artwork?
>
> I think perhaps [1] should be taken into consideration when deciding on
> licences.
> RMS says no CC licences are GPL compatible (which is hoped to change
> with CC3)

More importantly, CC3 will be FDL compatible, I hear

> however the linked page says:
> "This is a copyleft free license meant for artistic works and
> entertainment works.

A theme is artistic, though?

> Please don't use it for software or documentation,

Or is it software?

> We recommend using the  Free Art License, rather than this one, so as to
> avoid augmenting the problem caused by the vagueness of "a Creative
> Commons license". "
> Which brings up the problem of finding stuff licensed under the free art
> licence... which is just as unfree it seems.

Quite...

I've never, AFAIK, come across ANYTHING licensed under FAL. So that
this is okay for gNewSense is great, but somewhat irrelevant.

Also http://freecontentdefinition.org/Licenses says that the Free Art
License is not considered Free for Debian. While I'm not that fussed
about what Debian thinks, since they include non-free software in
main, it is a consideration IMO.

--
Regards,
Dave