Re: [Autonomo.us] AGPL licensing questions
It is indeed CC-By, which is also seen by many people who are far smarter than I am as incompatible with (A)GPL. Mike Linksvayer wrote at 10:03 (EST) on Tuesday: I'd love to see the analysis, or mere assertion, of this if there's any online. +1 :) It might not be completely crazy to add resolving to the CC 4.0 Yeah, definitely. CC-By should be compatible with all known SA non-software licenses and all FLOSS licenses [0] as well. If it's not, it's definitely a bug. [0] I was thinking a bit about the fact that some 1-clause-BSD and the Do What the F*** You Want license, for example, don't require attribution. Of course, they allow adding all sorts of relicensing requirements, so it should be theoretically possible to upgrade them to CC-By and still have a license that's DFSG/FSF/OSI-free. But, my gut says this might be trickier than it looks. -- -- bkuhn ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.autonomo.us http://lists.autonomo.us/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Autonomo.us] AGPL licensing questions
Hi, thanks for all the good input so far. I have in fact contacted the author of the original templates and asked for a different licensing. I don't know why the code and media (or everything but the media, ie images in this case), couldn't be licensed separately, under AGPL and CC BY respectively. It can be generally, but we've found in some of these cases with web templating engines that there are often not bright lines between the two. that is my understanding, too. I think modern web applications are very special in this regard, as they consist of server-side as well as client-side code, HTML, CSS and images. And it really is the sum of all those components that make up the application. Well, /if/ CC BY is not AGPL-incompatible, then you could just use I did in fact assume that CC-BY-SA was in use and I also assumed it's AGPLv3-incompatible. It's indeed possible that a simple CC-By is AGPLv3-compatible, but a careful analysis would be needed. It is indeed CC-By, which is also seen by many people who are far smarter than I am as incompatible with (A)GPL. Kind regards David ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.autonomo.us http://lists.autonomo.us/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Autonomo.us] AGPL licensing questions
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 14:08 +0100, David Roetzel wrote: 3. I based the web design (html, css and some images) on a free template under Creative Commons Attribution license. This is where it gets messy. Again I have no problem with giving attribution, but the original template code is now splattered all over my application, since I use small parts of it in many of my Rails-templates. It is so intertwined with my code now, that it can hardly be seen as seperate. This *is* messy. The right thing to do here (both technically and to reduce your licensing headaches) is to make your app themeable, and use the template to create the default theme, making the theme a legitimately separate work from the app that is a derivative of the CC-BY licensed template. If you maintain this default theme in a separate source tree, and make sure your app works even without a theme (it is probably OK if the un-themed app is horribly ugly, as long as it still works as intended), you should be OK to bundle the theme into your distribution of the app. IANAL, TINLA, etc. I realize that 'make your app themeable' is a non-trivial project, but it has the added advantage of being a major selling point for many app categories (especially if it allows your users to easily preserve their look and feel modifications while upgrading the app to a newer release). - Michael R. Bernstein signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.autonomo.us http://lists.autonomo.us/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Autonomo.us] AGPL licensing questions
Michael R. Bernstein wrote: On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 14:08 +0100, David Roetzel wrote: 3. I based the web design (html, css and some images) on a free template under Creative Commons Attribution license. This is where it gets messy. Again I have no problem with giving attribution, but the original template code is now splattered all over my application, since I use small parts of it in many of my Rails-templates. It is so intertwined with my code now, that it can hardly be seen as seperate. This *is* messy. The right thing to do here (both technically and to reduce your licensing headaches) is to make your app themeable, and use the template to create the default theme, making the theme a legitimately separate work from the app that is a derivative of the CC-BY licensed template. I'm new around here, so take this with a grain of salt... but maybe this opinion would be relevant: http://wordpress.org/development/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ As I understand it, the Software Freedom Law Centre concluded that, in the context of WordPress, the PHP files in a theme are subject to the requirements of the GPL, while images and CSS were not and could be separately licensed. But that seems very specific to an analysis of the WP source code. *shrugs* -- http://alleyneinc.net/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.autonomo.us http://lists.autonomo.us/mailman/listinfo/discuss
