Keith G wrote:
> It's unclear who's right. I've heard arguments from
other lawyers that
> the GPL simply cannot apply to images as the GPL itself explicitly
> refers to "source code" and its arguable whether an image is (I don't
> personally think images are source code, but a lawyer I am not). A
> license that better serves images such as a CC license might work best.
I am not a lawyer either, but I agree with this interpretation of the
GPL. And yet many people do license images under the GPL. It's
certianly very unclear whether this would stand up in court or not.
IMO the FSF should release another version of the GPL specifically for
"media" instead of "source code"'.
We had this discussion on Fedora Art when pondering the license for the
new icon theme (Echo) and have NOT reached a consensus yet.
CC-BY-SA (attribution, share-alike) has it own troubles, some people
argue it is not compatible with GPL.
OTOH, if the graphics is created in vector format, say SVG, I think it
can be argued this vector format *is* source code and the exported PNG
is something like a compiled binary.
Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/
Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org
my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro