Karol Kreński wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 02:26:40PM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
Sure, but in this case the author, Karol, released the *images* as GPL (does not matter with what program were created). I guess in such case a Creative Commons license would be more appropriate, but I am not sure if Share Alike would not pose the same problem.
Hmmm, I somehow prefer GPL vs Public Domain idea, at least for computer programs. Since I am running into problems like this (a need to attach the source .svgs to the magazine), or the problem "can my GPL images be submitted to openclipart which requires Public Domain submissions?" I think the best solution is to switch into Public Domain.
I also am a big fan of GPL, but GPL is a license worded precisely for code, it may not fit for other wind of works: documentation, images, music, movies. CreativeCommons does not necessarily means Public Domain, they have a broad spectrum of licenses, from the most restrictive Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs to Public Domain. For example one of these, Attribution-ShareAlike (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/) is very similar in permissions and requirements with GPL.
And so I just did on my gallery website - the images are now Public Domain.