Stephen Paul Weber writes: > Hey all, > > I've been thinking recently about the issue that Creative Commons does not > specify a copyleft license which would require the distribution of "source > form" for art that has a source form seperate from its distribution form. > Examples could be: images/videos rendered from blender models, PDFs rendered > from LaTeX, music in audio files that was originally created in a sequencer, > etc. > > CC-BY-SA does not really require that derivatives that then get "compiled" > must provide anything like a source offer along with their distribution. > > I'm wondering if GPLv3 or other strong copyleft licenses in existance would > have the desired effect when appiled to art? I know the GPL was very > specifically written for software, but with very similar goals.
I think GPLv3, as I have read it, would still apply given "preferred form for modification" language. I am increasingly pro-GPLv3 for cultural works. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
