4 ms·

> I imagine there might be (or could be) a license that asks for the "source" of art assets; that is, a .PSD file, or a blender project, or a script that genera

by emillon 14y ago

> I imagine there might be (or could be) a license that asks for the "source" of art assets; that is, a .PSD file, or a blender project, or a script that generates the image. That's a lot more useful to me than the final image itself, and a lot easier to modify if I wanted. This is used in the GPL : "The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." And also in the "open source definition" that can be used to judge whether something is free software or not : "The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program." [1] [1]: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Jach 14y ago
Ah yes, I've seen some art works released under the GPL before. Do many professionals do this? Have any lawyers looked over the GPL enough to see if there's really no hurdles with using it for non-software?
- emillon 14y ago
  I think that the GPL uses the term "derivative work" which is quite vague when it is not applied to code. Many software distributions encourage their upstream to use specific licenses such as one of the Creative Common licenses to cover art. That's true for text too ; for example most pages on gnu.org are licensed under CC-BY-ND. Unfortunately, as the -NC and -ND licenses add restrictions, some distributions such as Debian don't consider it free software (cf. [DFSG]). [DFSG]: http://www.debian.org/social_contract http://www.debian.org/social_contract
icebraining 14y ago
And also in the "open source definition" that can be used to judge whether something is free software or not It can not. The definition are very similar, but they're still distinct. If you want to judge whether something is Free Software, you need to read the source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- emillon 14y ago
  Totally agreed ; I should have pointed that this is only a guideline.

by emillon 14y ago

Jach 14y ago

Ah yes, I've seen some art works released under the GPL before. Do many professionals do this? Have any lawyers looked over the GPL enough to see if there's really no hurdles with using it for non-software?

emillon 14y ago
I think that the GPL uses the term "derivative work" which is quite vague when it is not applied to code. Many software distributions encourage their upstream to use specific licenses such as one of the Creative Common licenses to cover art. That's true for text too ; for example most pages on gnu.org are licensed under CC-BY-ND. Unfortunately, as the -NC and -ND licenses add restrictions, some distributions such as Debian don't consider it free software (cf. [DFSG]). [DFSG]: http://www.debian.org/social_contract http://www.debian.org/social_contract

icebraining 14y ago

And also in the "open source definition" that can be used to judge whether something is free software or not It can not. The definition are very similar, but they're still distinct. If you want to judge whether something is Free Software, you need to read the source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

emillon 14y ago
Totally agreed ; I should have pointed that this is only a guideline.