On Apr 6, 2005 7:30 PM, Sandip Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Works like books, documentation, fonts etc. can be offered either under > GPL/FDL or Creative Commons. > > I wanted your advice on this - if someone offers to release fonts, would > you prefer it to be under CC or under GPL?
fonts are best released as LGPL. thus, they can be used in embedded systems as well. for instance the symbian os uses opentype fonts, but the fonts are usually in firmware and others can be loaded in ram as well. LGPL also makes it legal for you to embed fonts in a pdf even if the pdf is not itself under a gpl or similar license. pdf under gpl, you ask? well, someone has to one day discuss that given the scripting through javascript, and even programming through extensions etc., you can bring into a pdf document, is a pdf file a simple data file, or is it a program, which is 'interpreted' by a pdf reader. while we waste endless time on this discussion, stick to lgpl for the fonts at least. i also feel fonts could do with a dual-license. with a creativecommons license attached to it AS WELL. but this has to be sorted out. > > What about books? Many people are releasing them under either FDL or CC. > How would you take a decision in this case? i have hemmed and hawed at this for months. the FDL has its problems. even the verbatim is no good, because it does not allow someone to quote a significant portion in another text. the creativecommons licenses also fall short of what you 'perceive' should be a fee book, or a manual. please treat the two as different entities. fortunately, creativecommons have started a discussion on several possible license. the issue of a special license for a developing country also makes sense, and creativecommons is doing that too. > Personally, I find CC licences to be more flexible, and more to the > point about its purpose. What do you think? CC comes in many flavours, so you can custom-fit a license. still it side-steps issues of controlling on your sentiments. example: 'can a photo you clicked of mother teresa, be used for an offending poster which is ironically also published under the same exact CC license...?' > I am trying to build up a case in asking certain organizations to > release some of their work to the commons. While I have zeroed in on CC > licences, I would like to know more about arguments of the other side. > the fdl also has its plus points btw. interestingly, almost all the licenses never talk about translations. besides, who gets authorship of the translation, under what license? in a better world, we would publish everything under the public domain license. dead authors and dead poets, who have been dead for a helluva long time, are quite popular due to this reason. living authors and poets have to figure out how to eke out a living, unless they are monstrously popular despite being alive. but then in a better world, there would be no written languages in the first place, and no need for books and manuals. and certainly no need for you and me, either. :-) LL _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [email protected] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
