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

[Sam Geeraerts]

r. siddharth wrote:
> This (Brett's comment) necessarily means that the images that are used 
> /as part/ of the Documentation _must_ be licensed under a license 
> compatible with the license of the Documentation.

True. I browsed through the artwork you listed on the wiki and I don't 
really see any of them as part of the documentation. I call 
ArtworkPlan/Propose a wiki page that aggregates some artwork.

By contrast, the icons, examples and screenshots in Documentation/GIMP 
are clearly part of the article. Perhaps we can get away with fair use 
for some of it (e.g. I'm not aware of publishers of non-free technical 
books seeking copyright clearance for icons and screenshots (including 
window decorations, logos etc.)).

> As a consequence, the 
> images used in the Documentation should also be licensed under GFDL (in 
> our case), I want to know if this already true ?

Under a GFDL compatible license, in fact. GFDL itself is the most 
straightforward, because then there's no question about compatibility.

> This leads me to my next question :
>
>  Are images that are used /as part/ of Documentation count as "Artwork"? 
> Or by "Artwork", we mean only the wallpapers, logos and the like ?
>
> I am asking this because, if images which are part of Documentation are 
> considered as "Artwork", then we cannot apply OPT.1) as the text and the 
> images in the Documentation should necessarily be licensed under a 
> compatible license.

The term "artwork" is too vague and we should not use it in the updated 
copyright notice. The consideration for this discussion is whether or 
not an image (or video, sound, ...) is part of the surrounding text. 
Otherwise put: the difference between functional and artistic use.

> Why can't the new artwork be dual licensed (GFDL & CC BY-SA) ?

If it's merely listed (aggregated) on the wiki, then any free license 
should not be a problem. If it's integrated, then it should have at 
least one GFDL compatible license, but there's no objection to GFDL + 
CC-BY-SA dual licensing.