Conversation:
Notices
-
Using the !GPL v3+ as a license for artistic works instead of !CC By-SA - is it too crazy an idea?
-
@csolisr You mean like pictures? Maybe you'd be better off with CC or licensing it twice, CC and separately GPL. Also, are you trolling? :-)
-
@csolisr Interesting idea. Someone else just said that would be a good idea for creative works, it would allow for re-editing movies, say
-
@dper 1. It's actually a multimedia project. Sources will be edited with free software, and I need to keep it so for derivative works.
-
@csolisr non-crazy.
-
@csolisr ... But that doesn't mean you can just stop developing. Perhaps pushing for more PD works would be a productive angle?
-
I keep telling myself that I will not get sucked into these #unproductive conversations, but rather spend my time #producing things....
-
@dper Of course I haven't stopped making. I just need to wait until the licensing system gets more apt, in order to *publish*.
-
I'm not sure you understand dual-licensing. That means you offer both. They do not need to be compatible. Hence, douches release under proprietary and copyleft licenses at same time.
-
@douglasawh Dual-licensing defeats my purpose. People can choose not to release source under CC-By-SA, rendering the GPL useless.
-
releasing under the GPL defeats your purpose because no one outside of software uses it. Assuming, of course, your purpose is for people to use it and not to make a political statement. No judgment: perhaps a political statement needs to be made.
-
@csolisr If you want to make your work easily reusable, release the art separately: once under GPL and once under CC-BY-SA...
-
@csolisr ... For your code, only release it under GPL (with the GPL art included). That should work, right?
-
@douglasawh Avoiding derivative works in non-free software or formats is mandatory for me. Soon !CC will allow 1-way compatibility with GPL.
-
@csolisr @arnebab has been doing that for a while
-
you should convince @rms to release under the GPL: http://stallman.org/guantanamero