On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, NeuRoTiX wrote: > I took a look to the Creative Commons but it seems to be a non > GPL-compatible license.
Yes, most of the CC licenses (there are a few dozen of the things) are not GPL compatible. > I don't know if I can use the GPL itself because it's not possible > to identify the source and the Program. > > So, which license I can use to release my works in order to let them > GPL-compatibles? In order for them to be GPL compatible, you'll have to figure out what the prefered form for modification is for the photographs and the music.[1] In most cases, this is the digital form of the work which you would use if you were going to make modifications to the work. [.xcf files, .mid sequence files with sounds, unmixed recordings, etc.] The actual license that the work is released under is the second concern. Since GPL compatibility is a goal, your choice is primarily whether you want the work to be copyleft or not. If not, an MIT style license is probably the best bet. If it is, just use the GPL. [Since you're the copyright holder, you can always dual license your work too.] > [I'm reading debian.legal thru Usenet, if you reply, please cc also > on this email] The easiest way to indicate this is to set Mail-Followup-To: to something appropriate. Don Armstrong 1: This is because anyone who is distributing these files as part of a derivative work of a GPLed work will have to include the prefered form for modification for all the parts of the derivative work. -- In all matters of government, the correct answer is usually: "Do nothing" -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p428 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
