[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Fwd: Re: K-ARTIST:artwork license
From:       antialias <vukman () b2mail ! dk>
Date:       2002-04-01 15:04:43
[Download RAW message or body]



----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: K-ARTIST:artwork license
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 17:03:21 +0200
From: antialias <vukman@b2mail.dk>
To: luci@sh.ground.cz

On Monday 01 April 2002 03:47, luciash d' being wrote:
> Dne ne 31. b=F8ezen 2002 23:55 Torsten Rahn napsal(a):
> > > > i agree it is not good enough to use just a sentence as a license=
 but
> > > > i am for using Artistic License
> >
> > Yes, that sounds better to me as well. The only reason I haven't done
> > this until now is that I am not really aware of the differences betwe=
en
> > the "free for ..." and the Artistic License.
>
> so... i don't know ;)
> i'm confused now again what is the better solution :p
> in other words: why we have the Artistic license? what is it suitable f=
or?
>
> please, anyone have other suggestions?
>
> luci

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand which license would be
 appropriate for artwork. I provided some links for you:

1. The Clarified Artistic License

This license is a free software license, compatible with the GPL. It is t=
he
minimal set of changes needed to correct the vagueness of the Original
Artistic License.

http://www.statistica.unimib.it/utenti/dellavedova/software/artistic2.htm=
l

2. The (Original) Artistic License

You cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too vag=
ue;
some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not
clear. GNU.org urge you to avoid using it, except as part of the disjunct=
ive
license of Perl.

http://www.perl.com/language/misc/Artistic.html

3. The Original BSD License

http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#6

4. The Modified BSD license

This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising
clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
compatible with the GNU GPL.

If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the
modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky to
recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occu=
r
and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, y=
ou
can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised BSD
license are more or less equivalent.

http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5

Comments written above are quotes from http://www.gnu.org

Regards,

antialias

-------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
kde-artists mailing list
kde-artists@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]