RE: [Inkscape-user] images for a magazine...
Karol:
here come my GPLed images created with inkscape: http://www.inf.sgsp.edu.pl/pub/MALUNKI/STRAZ/
The GPL would require the magazine to distribute the .svg files, being the preferred source format for modification, wouldn't it?
__________________________________________________ Phil Hibbs | Capgemini | Rotherham Technical Consultant __________________________________________________
This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
Hibbs, Phil wrote:
Karol:
here come my GPLed images created with inkscape: http://www.inf.sgsp.edu.pl/pub/MALUNKI/STRAZ/
The GPL would require the magazine to distribute the .svg files, being the preferred source format for modification, wouldn't it?
As far as I understand it wouldn't mean that. Afaik you can use any open source program to create content and then you are free to use that content in any way (eg. use gimp or blender to create content that you sell comercially even)
Emanuel Glitia wrote:
Hibbs, Phil wrote:
Karol:
here come my GPLed images created with inkscape: http://www.inf.sgsp.edu.pl/pub/MALUNKI/STRAZ/
The GPL would require the magazine to distribute the .svg files, being the preferred source format for modification, wouldn't it?
As far as I understand it wouldn't mean that. Afaik you can use any open source program to create content and then you are free to use that content in any way (eg. use gimp or blender to create content that you sell comercially even)
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.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 02:26:40PM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
Emanuel Glitia wrote:
Hibbs, Phil wrote:
Karol:
here come my GPLed images created with inkscape: http://www.inf.sgsp.edu.pl/pub/MALUNKI/STRAZ/
The GPL would require the magazine to distribute the .svg files, being the preferred source format for modification, wouldn't it?
As far as I understand it wouldn't mean that. Afaik you can use any open source program to create content and then you are free to use that content in any way (eg. use gimp or blender to create content that you sell comercially even)
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.
And so I just did on my gallery website - the images are now Public Domain.
Karol
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.
participants (4)
-
Emanuel Glitia -
Hibbs, Phil -
Karol Kreński -
Nicu Buculei