4 ms·
Why are they MIT licensed? That's a weird license to use for art assets. Why not Creative Commons?
by theknarf 8y ago
Why are they MIT licensed? That's a weird license to use for art assets. Why not Creative Commons?
- lucideer 8y agoCC got rid of their non-attribution v1.0 licences in 2004, so since then there has been three options for people wanting to release art without requiring attribution: - CC-By but include an extra note allowing people to omit attribution. This is hassle and may not be legally ok. - CC0. This comes with other affordances you may not want - Use some slightly inappropriate code licence like MIT
- gioele 8y ago> CC got rid of their non-attribution v1.0 licences in 2004, so since then there has been three options for people wanting to release art without requiring attribution: But MIT requires attribution as well: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
- lucideer 8y agoIANAL but my understanding is that the legal interpretation of that is that the copyright and permission notice doesn't (need to) include the name of the copyright holder.
- anges244 8y agoSVG's are practically code and can be easily copy-pasted so MIT is a pretty much suitable choice...