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

[r. siddharth]

 >> 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.

Sam Geeraerts wrote:

> 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.

Do I have to list the images used in the Documentation in the Artwork 
List at the RelicensingArtwork[1] wiki. Hitherto, under the assumption 
that the images used in the Documentation are not "Artistic", I have 
ignored to list them in the wiki. I'll have track (and thus list) these 
images in the Documentation, if it is required.


> 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.

Here is how I conceive the difference :

 --> If the media is used inside a Documentation, then it is necessary 
functional (in most of the cases).

--> The media is artistic, if it qualifies to be used to "frill" the 
operating system.


 >> 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.

Noted.

I thank you.

[1] http://www.gnewsense.org/RelicensingArtwork
--
rsiddharth
http://rsiddharth.ninth.su/