[cc-community] CC or GPL source code that creates art
Mike Linksvayer
ml at creativecommons.org
Wed Mar 18 00:54:15 EDT 2009
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Gisle Hannemyr <gisle at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> On 18.03.2009 03:20, Tom Sparks wrote:
>> can the source code that create art be placed under CC?
>
> Yes.
>
> Source code for a computer program is a copyrightable, creative work,
> so I can't see any problem placing it under CC.
Except it is not recommended by CC. There are too many software
licenses already, many of them excellent for the purpose.
> Gnu GPL (General Public License) is probably a more popular choice
> for source code (and corresponds roughly with CC BY-SA), but if
> you prefer CC, go ahead and use it!
Probably? That's an understatement if I ever read one. :)
I haven't used Logo since I was a kid, but it or some subset might
constitute an edge case were a program's source code is the modifiable
form of an art work. It might make sense to place that work under
BY-SA so it can easily be combined with other art under BY-SA.
Another major difference between BY-SA and the GPL (the first, implied
above, is that the sets of work licensed under each is of a very
different nature) is that the GPL requires the source code remain
free.
This could even be a case for dual licensing, not to exercise more
control (which dual licensing can't), but to allow potential adapters
to choose the right license for their particular use, which could be
more software or art-like.
IANAL, the above is increasingly wild speculation, have fun...
Mike
More information about the cc-community
mailing list