Unterhaltung
Nachrichten
-
@sazius true, but it stands to reason that *logically* it should be possible to combine products if all have a 'copyleft' license. That would exclude bundling CC BY with GPL, for instance. But most icon fonts I see that use a CC license at all do indeed use CC BY-SA. I also saw some MIT-licensed fonts; though could 'logically' not be bundled with GPL either, at least if you want the whole bundle to be "copyleft".
-
@mk you can easily bundle MIT with GPL - you can even combine them: the combined work will then be under GPL.
-
@drak yes, technically - I agbree. but I'm thinking "logically" combining licenses based on the same types of ideas about sharing, modifying and (re)distribution
-
@mk there the problem is that you cannot combine cc by-sa and GPL. CC by-sa 4.0 draft4 adds the potential of compatibility at later time: ur1.ca/9vay7 — my hope was that they would add explicit GPL compatibility in the license, but at least with this change, all they have to do to finally get rid of the hideous separation in the licenses is to add the GPL to the list of compatible licenses on their website. I hope that this clause will stay in cc 4.0, and I hope they go through with declaring GPL as compatible. I think I spent about a hundred hours clearing up misconceptions on the GPL during the discussions about cc 4.0…
mk gefällt das. -
@mk besides: If or when it becomes possible to combine cc by-sa works with GPL works, I want to relicense those of my own works to cc by-sa which do not require availability of the sources to allow people to change the works.
-
@drak I thought the whole 'SA' bit is for if you do make changes (and distribute those) - which would logically require 'sources' to do that
-
@mk SA just requires you to allow changes, not to actually make them possible. Releasing only a PDF built from by-sa latex files is allowed…
-
@mk yes, but it makes perfect sense for multi-track recordings and images, where often the sources are 100x larger than the release.
-
@mk Essentially there are some types of works, for which sharing the sources is unfeasible (several TiB for a work of 100MiB) and which can be changed quite well (though not perfectly) without having these sources. For these kinds of works, GPL is not suited well. Using the works under GPL without ever having the real sources would work, though, because then the work itself would be the preferred medium for making changes for the one who releases it under GPL. So one-way compatibility from CC to GPL would be an ideal solution.
mk gefällt das.
-
Alle Inhalte und Daten von 1w6 uRPG sind unter der