Re: [gNewSense-art] Re-Licensing Artwork.

[alexus / dotcommon]

On 28.05.2012 15:38 Sam Geeraerts wrote:

> Brett says that both licenses want to cover everything, because of
> their copyleft nature. However, I found today that Wikipedia 
> considers
> images to be aggregated with the text [1]. That view makes it 
> possible
> for both to have incompatible licenses, as far as I know. If that's
> also true for our case, then there's no problem after all.
>
> On the other hand, Wikipedia is a bad example because its text is
> dual licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA instead of GFDL only, images
> under either license are less problematic. And whether or not an 
> image
> is aggregated probably depends on how tightly it's integrated with 
> the
> text. If the text says "as you can see in the top left corner" then
> it's harder to separate the image than when it merely serves as an
> example or illustration.

You are right.

Maybe it is not so easy to assess if an image is or not aggregated with 
text, and every case is different from other: having images under either 
license should be less problematic.

Wikipedia dual licensing is a very particular situation (please, see 
discussion about Wikipedia, FDL Section 11, FDL and CC BY-SA at the FDL 
FAQ page [1])... Anyway, ask authors to dual licensing the GNS artwork 
*already* inserted in the GNS web pages should be the best thing to 
solve the issue. And, to avoid problems in the future, I think any *new* 
artwork which will be inserted in the GNS web pages should be licensed 
(at least) under the FDL.

> > - since now all GNS artwork has been licensed as CC BY-SA
>
> For completeness I'll add that some artwork has a different license.
> E.g. the gNewSense logo at the top of the website falls under GPLv2.

Thank you for this clarification.

> > - artwork to be used within the GNS operating system (logos, 
> > wallpapers,
> >   themes, icons, buttons etc.) could (should I think) *remain* 
> > licensed as CC
> >   BY-SA
>
> I agree that it's more suitable for artwork.

There is something other I want to say about artwork within the GNS 
operating system (logos, wallpapers, themes, icons, buttons etc.): but I 
am going to write a separate email about this.


> > - artwork (images, videos etc.) inserted into the GNS's wiki pages 
> > should have
> >   a license compatible with FDL: this can be achieved (as far as I 
> > know) asking
> >   contributors to re-license to FDL or to dual-licensing adding FDL 
> > to the CC
> >   BY-SA
>
> Dual licensing is better, because that's the most flexible.

I totally agree.

> Artists
> who agreed with rsiddharth's query are ok with both CC-BY-SA and GFDL
> for their artwork, so I think it's safe to assume they're ok with 
> dual
> licensing.

Me too :-)


> > Defining more closely what is my suggestion, I think the best thing 
> > to do is:
> > - ask those (which shold be the copyright holders) who have included 
> > artwork
> >   (images, videos etc.) in the pages of the GNS's wiki to re-license 
> > it to FDL
> >   or dual-licensing adding FDL to the CC BY-SA - then "move" the 
> > entire contents of the GNS's wiki/documentation to FDL
> > - and, at the same time, change the license statement in the footer 
> > (*)
> > (*) the footer could say something like:
> > "Unless otherwise specified, all contents in this site (textual, 
> > graphics,
> > [...]"
>
> That's the plan. Unless we can claim aggregation. In that case we
> should find a way to easily add and view license information of 
> images
> on the wiki.

In my opinion, dual licensing seems the best way.
As we have discussed before, claim aggregation maybe difficult; and 
manage license information of each image on the wiki maybe a not 
necessary effort.


Regards


[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html


--
al3xu5 / dotcommon

Support free software! Join FSF: http://www.fsf.org/jf?referrer=7535