> You shouldn't GFDL it if deb considers it non free. > I never considered using the GFDL, since it was meant to be used for text or documentation material, not artistic pictures. The "Debian sees it as non-free" point was never considered, since the GFDL obviously didn't fit well artwork.
> Stick with the GPL that crossfire uses. > At the risk of sounding repetitive, the GPL is *not* suited for "artistic" pictures ! It uses definitions that *cannot* be applied in a clear, unambiguous way to that kind of work. So no, I'll *never* use it for anything else than code (and other similar works). Note that it doesn't mean that I want to create a special case that would make the picture not compatible with the GPL - quite the contrary, I think my proposal protects correctly the work done, while allowing free redistribution and compatibility with GPL-based softwares. > I make alot of art for crossfire and I don't insist > on a new license... you can do the same. > No. The GPL wouldn't correctly protect that work in most countries. Simply because you accepted such a situation doesn't make a clunky solution more efficient or appliable. > Otherwise... why do we need a new welcome screen? > Because the current one is not very nice ? Because it depicts monsters whose design completely changed ? Because a change or two is often refreshing ? Besides that, I posted the license proposal so that if a GPL-incompatibility had slipped in, others may spot it, allowing to solve the issue. The decision of not using the GNU-GPLv2 or the GFDL has already been taken, and there is no point of reopening that debate, especially when nothing but sentimental feelings can justify the rediscussion. _______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
