Slashdot Mirror
Licensing Artwork for Use with Open Source Software?
Bill Kendrick asks: "I've created numerous Open Source games for Linux in the past, and am currently working on a new title, "Tux Paint" (a drawing program for little kids). In creating Tux Paint, though, it will be necessary for me to get contributions of artwork and photographs. When asking the various sources I find for permission to use their work, I'll of course explain that the product is GPL. ...But how will the GPL license of the software affect their works? Is there some kind of dual-licensing I can do which says 'software is GPL, artwork is XYZ' (where 'XYZ' might be 'owned by original creator', 'now public domain', 'only available when used with this GPL'd product', etc)"
just take the ODL, make some adjustments as you feel are necessary, and rename it OIL - Open Imaging Licence
Yes. Just do exactly that.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
In my opinion you should consider this: your software can be used without the images or with different images?
If this is the case I believe that different licensing (software is GPL, artwork is XYZ) is just fine, on the contrary, if the actual images are an important part in the project, and it would be impossible (or very hard) to make a modified version of the program whithout manipulating the images you shoud have them under some GPL compatible licenze, either an adapded GPL or a FDL.
Is it OK if I use the Gnome icons in my Windows application? (or, say, my webpage). I like the look of Tigert's Gnome 2 icons too - are they available under any particular licence?
If you're writing the software yourself, just say that the GPL does not apply to the artwork. OTOH, if you're using someone else's code, then you should get permission to create a derivitive work of the program with the proprietary images included. Not doing so violates the GPL, or at the least is a contributory violation of the end-users' violations.
First of all, you have to license each individual file. All of the code should be licensed individually per file. Now, because the artwork presummable doesn't link with the GPL'ed application (or is it one of those new fangled JPEG viruses? *grin*). The artwork can be under any license you want. It doesn't have to be GPL'ed now, because it isn't linked into the application. So you're distributing two different works on the same media. Datafiles don't have to have the same license as the data they operate on, or output. Your artwork license can be roughly the SPL (Soulless Public License), which is roughly you have to give me you're soul to use my works in any way shape or form, including merely reading the license or viewing the file in a file browser. It is legal (okay the my SPL example might not be). You can put it in the public domain and it is legal. You can put it into any old license you want and the artwork is legal.
if you distribute your images as XPM files they're basically C code which can be linked and distributed as GPL.
the XPM file format just whacks a bunch of ascii data into a C compatible file which can be compiled by gcc.
> But how will the GPL license of the software affect their works?
This seems to be a growing issue. E.g., there has been a recent discussion on the Freeciv mailing list, where they are actively trying to get their hands on improved graphics but want to be rigorous about licensing issues. (And alas, they had to reject some nice tilesets that various people have submitted because of dubious licensing status.)
It seems to me that this would be worth writing the FSF about and seeing whether they are interested in providing a "content" license. They recently produced their GNU Free Documentation License in recognition that the GPL doesn't cover everything, but that does not seem to be completely apt for game artwork (and other game content) either.
They do link to another Design Science License for data, which you may want to evaluate. But IMO it would be great if you could get the FSF to produce and defend a free content license (GCL?) that was explicitly defined to work like and with the GPL.
The reason I think the FSF might take an interest is because so much new GPL'd software is GUI-oriented and requires graphics of one sort or another, and a basic corpus of free/licensed graphics might help free software take off in new areas like it has in infrastructure.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
OK, this is 100% pure spam, and I'm a bit worried about slashdot reaction, but I figure you are going to need penguin pictures, right ? I just started selling a CD of Antarctic pictures, royalty-free.
Non-Linux Penguins ?