Is GPL suitable for non-code works?

Contribute art for mainline Wesnoth.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Forum rules
Before posting critique in this forum, you must read the following thread:
Post Reply
person

i am not a lawyer

Post by person »

But I recall reading that the GPL is not suitable for non-code works (in particular artistic works) due to its wording, and that there exist other licences whose wording better suits copyrighted works like graphics and music. The spirit is obviously correct, but references to "source code" etc are unsuitable.
Top
miyo
Posts: 2201
Joined: August 19th, 2003, 4:28 pm
Location: Finland

Post by miyo »

e.g. FreeCiv is GPL, they don't say "Code is GPL, art is SomeOtherLicense"

- Miyo
Top
Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:
Contact Dave

Post by Dave »

miyo wrote:e.g. FreeCiv is GPL, they don't say "Code is GPL, art is SomeOtherLicense"
Indeed, and since we borrow a little art from FreeCiv, we can't distribute this art under any license other than the GPL.

David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
Top
fmunoz
Founding Artist
Posts: 1469
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 10:04 am
Location: Spain
Contact:
Contact fmunoz

Post by fmunoz »

Dave wrote:Indeed, and since we borrow a little art from FreeCiv, we can't distribute this art under any license other than the GPL.
Smae with sound effects from Egoboo.
Top
Shade
Posts: 1111
Joined: April 18th, 2004, 11:17 pm

It's not sow much. . .

Post by Shade »

It's not so much that Art doesn't fall under the scope of the GPL as that large sections of the GPL are irrelevant in the case of art. 'Null' clauses are (should be) fine, so long as they can't be used against you. Since the GPL has never been successfully challenged in any court, these irrelevant clauses should be of little worry.
Note to forum users: You are in a maze of twisty little passages
Top
Integral
Posts: 244
Joined: December 14th, 2003, 9:36 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by Integral »

IMO, the best thing to do if you can is to add an addendum next to the GPL; eg, "this art is under the GPL, and we consider 'source code' to be the original XCF files...". I don't know if this has any legal significance, but it helps elucidate what you think you're doing, which can never be bad. :)

Daniel
Top
miyo
Posts: 2201
Joined: August 19th, 2003, 4:28 pm
Location: Finland

Post by miyo »

Integral wrote:we consider 'source code' to be the original XCF files..."
What if there are no XCFs.

- Miyo
Top
fmunoz
Founding Artist
Posts: 1469
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 10:04 am
Location: Spain
Contact:
Contact fmunoz

Post by fmunoz »

I usually dont keep the xcf for the units sprites... I work with pngs.
For large images I keep most of the xcf files. Maybe we should made them avalaible. Till now anyone who asked me for the images got them.
Last edited by fmunoz on June 22nd, 2004, 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Integral
Posts: 244
Joined: December 14th, 2003, 9:36 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by Integral »

miyo wrote:
Integral wrote:we consider 'source code' to be the original XCF files..."
What if there are no XCFs.
Well, you don't have to say exactly that -- it was just an example of the sort of thing I was talking about. If you want well-reasoned suggestions for specific language, debian-legal@lists.debian.org may be a good forum; I know that the people on that list have discussed this sort of issue ad nauseum.

Daniel
Top
person

here we go

Post by person »

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... anSoftware
Well, that's reassuring.

Ah, debian-legal... what a boatload of fun people ;) It's good toknow people are taking care of these things, though.
Top
Integral
Posts: 244
Joined: December 14th, 2003, 9:36 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: here we go

Post by Integral »

person wrote:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... anSoftware
Well, that's reassuring.
Be warned, though, that their suggestion (use the GFDL) is a bad idea; the GFDL has a number of problems that make it questionable whether it's even a free license (despite the name). See http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Posi ... ement.html.

Daniel
Top
person

Re: here we go

Post by person »

Integral wrote:
person wrote:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... anSoftware
Well, that's reassuring.
Be warned, though, that their suggestion (use the GFDL) is a bad idea; the GFDL has a number of problems that make it questionable whether it's even a free license (despite the name). See http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Posi ... ement.html.

Daniel
As a debian-devel lurker, I've watched all the headaches associated with this. It's sort of funny that the GNU Free Documentation Licence doesn't conform to the Debian Free Software Guide :) But yeah - the licence including bits for non-removable portions of documentation makes it non free. Additionally, free software distros like Debian won't include such software in them (depending on how the argument turns out, I guess).
Top
miyo
Posts: 2201
Joined: August 19th, 2003, 4:28 pm
Location: Finland

Re: here we go

Post by miyo »

Q: Can I use the GPL for something other than software?

A: You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the "source code" for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it..."
So we can decide that the ogg-file is the "source" (as you can "easily" make changes or use parts of it) in music, for images we can decide that the png-file is the source (as you can "easily" make changes or use parts of it).

I don't see any problem.

- Miyo
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Art Contributions”