[okfn-discuss] software licences for data? (was Re: possible OKD conformant licence: The MirOS Licence)

[Thorsten Glaser]

Note: I changed the title as this has nothing to do with the MirOS
Licence any more. The latter was specifically drafted to *not* be
a software(-only) licence, as I had artwork, multimedia, documenta-
tion, etc. (fonts aren't copyrightable in Germany) in mind in the
first place.


Patrick Anderson dixit:

>> The GPL/AGPL aren't included because they are covered by the open
>> source/free software definitions.
>
>Does this mean all licenses covered by those definitions are
>automatically INCLUDED, or that they are automatically EXCLUDED?

They are automatically excluded, as they don't match the definition.
This goes along with FSF recommendations to use specially-crafted
documentation licences.

>For instance, I follow the development of many Free Software games,
>and know that some of the groups are moving from the CC licenses to
>the GPL for the artwork (3D models, sprites, textures, etc.) because
>it just makes things easier to use a GPL compatible license,
> [ copyleft FUD stripped ]

Using the GNU GPL for non-software is possible, but only to a limited
amount. This works best for e.g. manuals that are partially created
from the programme in question, or vice versa.

>Even a small amount of music and video is available under the GPL.

Sure, this is possible, since the licensor decides, but pretty sub-
optimal, as the scope of interpretation is broader and more fuzzy.

I think the idea behind OSD (software) and OKD is to make things
less fuzzy to give people an idea what to do / where to look for
licences, not to cover all possible corner cases.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

//mirabilos
-- 
Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh-
ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant
detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions
in English text in bold font.	-- Rob Pike in "Notes on Programming in C"