[cc-community] public performance and GPL

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Jan 11 08:19:54 EST 2012


On Tuesday 10 January 2012 21:50:54 Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> 
wrote:
> > I'm now more convinced than I was yesterday that GPL(v2/v3)
> > should be avoided for non-software works.
>
> Unless you want your non-software work to be used in a GPL program.
>
> And if you want your non-software work to be both used in GPL programs
> and used outside of GPL programs, especially if you want it to be
> usable in non-digital form, then you should probably dual license it
> GPL and CC-something.

Perhaps, but until we spend some serious brainstorming time looking for better 
solutions, I am not willing to accept that dual licensing is the right way. 
Does the FSF take the "needs" of non-code Freedom into account when drafting 
the GPL? Until they do, I think the GPL should be treated warily with respect 
to Freedom of art.

Is there a reason I am getting no real discussion on the thought of drafting 
copyleft licenses so that parts from various works under various licenses can 
intermingle while remaining distinct? Trying for analogies here:

Like raisins and almonds in a bowl of gelatin?

all the best,

drew


More information about the cc-community mailing list