For me, it was mostly (b). It lead to people regularly posting to complain about music not having any "source" available, even though no one could agree on what this source might actually be. I also think (a) was a big problem for many more experienced musicians. These two problems is probably among the main reasons why you're not getting any music submissions anymore. So I applaud the move to CC, not a day too soon IMO.
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Paul Ebermann <[email protected]> wrote: > Martin Proud wrote: > > As far as music goes, this change is most welcome! > > > > Having been a long-time lurker in the Music sub-forum, I know music > > submissions using the GPL requirement was a point of major frustration > > that, in turn, I believe played a significant part in turning away some > > of our best music contributors. > > Just to make sure, what is the main reason for this? > > Is this > (a) because of the "anyone can change it and release the changed version > again" (as long as the result is still licensed with the same license) > allowance, or > (b) because of the "one needs to provide sources" requirement, or > (c) for some other reason? > > Point (a) would still apply for CC-BY-SA – it is a > derived-works-allowed-with-copyleft license just like GPL, just made > specifically for content instead of code (so Point (b) doesn't apply > anymore). > > If you want "everyone can use this, but not make changed versions", then > "CC-BY-ND" (no derived works) would be a better license, but this is not > what Dave is proposing (and I guess it might not be suitable for a > project like Wesnoth). > > > Paul (not an artist) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wesnoth-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
