Hello,
I've been following a Gimp thread about the restrictions or limitations on the creative output in Gimp. Of course there is no restriction and our license covers the software not the output. But some companies are concerned or have questions.
So the question is: Should we put a notice/disclaimer/information in the about screen stating in plain [local-language] that output from inkscape is not restricted/copyrighted/limited and is owned by the creator suject to local laws etc etc.
I'm not sure of the wording and maybe the SFLC could help bake a nice sentence for multiple Free Software creative groups.
Thoughts?
Martin,
Hey Martin,
Do you have a link to the thread so I don't have to ask you a bunch of questions I could get answered elsewhere? :)
If at some point we're going to add any official language which could be construed as a legal statement (even if plainly worded), we should probably run it by Tony and/or Bradley at Software Freedom Conservancy since we are already a member and they advise us on all of the other similar language we use to officially represent the project. By no means am I against utilizing the SFLC for the broader goal of common language for the community, I would just personally feel better if we were to have SFC give approval before it represents our project.
Cheers, Josh
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Martin Owens <doctormo@...23...> wrote:
Hello,
I've been following a Gimp thread about the restrictions or limitations on the creative output in Gimp. Of course there is no restriction and our license covers the software not the output. But some companies are concerned or have questions.
So the question is: Should we put a notice/disclaimer/information in the about screen stating in plain [local-language] that output from inkscape is not restricted/copyrighted/limited and is owned by the creator suject to local laws etc etc.
I'm not sure of the wording and maybe the SFLC could help bake a nice sentence for multiple Free Software creative groups.
Thoughts?
Martin,
Time is money. Stop wasting it! Get your web API in 5 minutes. www.restlet.com/download http://p.sf.net/sfu/restlet _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 14:44 -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
Hey Martin,
Do you have a link to the thread so I don't have to ask you a bunch of questions I could get answered elsewhere? :)
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2014-May/msg00082.html
If at some point we're going to add any official language which could be construed as a legal statement (even if plainly worded), we should probably run it by Tony and/or Bradley at Software Freedom Conservancy since we are already a member and they advise us on all of the other similar language we use to officially represent the project. By no means am I against utilizing the SFLC for the broader goal of common language for the community, I would just personally feel better if we were to have SFC give approval before it represents our project.
I though it was too obvious to mention to pass it over the SFC.
Martin,
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Martin Owens <doctormo@...23...> wrote:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2014-May/msg00082.html
Thank you. I will read over it at some point over the weekend.
I though it was too obvious to mention to pass it over the SFC.
Given my current mentally exhausted state, nothing is too obvious. :) Plus, for me least, it's good to just have it stated as part of the plan in the discussion history.
Cheers, Josh
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:42:06PM -0400, Martin Owens wrote:
Hello,
I've been following a Gimp thread about the restrictions or limitations on the creative output in Gimp. Of course there is no restriction and our license covers the software not the output. But some companies are concerned or have questions.
So the question is: Should we put a notice/disclaimer/information in the about screen stating in plain [local-language] that output from inkscape is not restricted/copyrighted/limited and is owned by the creator suject to local laws etc etc.
I'm not sure of the wording and maybe the SFLC could help bake a nice sentence for multiple Free Software creative groups.
Thoughts?
Just last month I had an email from a professor who needed to have written permission from me to allow Inkscape to be installed on her university's servers for students to download.
Over the years I've fielded a lot of these types of questions. I've never had someone ask about licensing of the program *output*, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me to hear one.
However, I'd suggest instead of putting a statement on this specific point in the about screen, to link back to the website where we have more control. That way we can provide updated info, explain things in more detail, and link them to official stuff as needed. Maybe point it to the Legal section of the FAQ, and add items for licensing of output, etc. etc.
Bryce
participants (3)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Josh Andler -
Martin Owens