Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software

Licensing Artwork for Use with Open Source Software? 19

Posted by Cliff from the the-devil-is-in-the-(licensing)-details dept.
Bill Kendrick asks: "I've created numerous Open Source games for Linux in the past, and am currently working on a new title, "Tux Paint" (a drawing program for little kids). In creating Tux Paint, though, it will be necessary for me to get contributions of artwork and photographs. When asking the various sources I find for permission to use their work, I'll of course explain that the product is GPL. ...But how will the GPL license of the software affect their works? Is there some kind of dual-licensing I can do which says 'software is GPL, artwork is XYZ' (where 'XYZ' might be 'owned by original creator', 'now public domain', 'only available when used with this GPL'd product', etc)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Licensing Artwork for Use with Open Source Software? More

Licensing Artwork for Use with Open Source Software?

Comments Filter:

  • Asked and answered (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Otter ( 3800 )
    Is there some kind of dual-licensing I can do which says 'software is GPL, artwork is XYZ' (where 'XYZ' might be 'owned by original creator', 'now public domain', 'only available when used with this GPL'd product', etc)

    Yes. Just do exactly that.

  • In my opinion you should consider this: your software can be used without the images or with different images?
    If this is the case I believe that different licensing (software is GPL, artwork is XYZ) is just fine, on the contrary, if the actual images are an important part in the project, and it would be impossible (or very hard) to make a modified version of the program whithout manipulating the images you shoud have them under some GPL compatible licenze, either an adapded GPL or a FDL.

    • Maybe I'm missing something, but would a modification to the GPL be necessary? The GPL is a license to use a copyrighted work. The art is copyrighted work. Why can't the GPL therefore apply to the art? The only quibble would be about "source code", but if you released the original GIMP file as well as the bitmap/jpeg/whatever wouldn't that cover it?

      • "Source Code" for images is simply the original image at 100% size, unencoded into a binary. Java for instance provides this. They just use images in a directory and have a path to it specified by the code. A GIMP or Photoshop file or whatever would not correlate to the source. What would you do with a photo? Provide the negative in the packaging?

      • You should add exactly what you mean with "source code": i think that this is a (slight) modification of the GPL.

        Of course you won't change the spirit of the license, but only some detail, expecially if you choose the definition of "transparent copy" from the FDL as a definition of "source" for the images.

  • Gnome 2's icons (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is it OK if I use the Gnome icons in my Windows application? (or, say, my webpage). I like the look of Tigert's Gnome 2 icons too - are they available under any particular licence?
  • If you're writing the software yourself, just say that the GPL does not apply to the artwork. OTOH, if you're using someone else's code, then you should get permission to create a derivitive work of the program with the proprietary images included. Not doing so violates the GPL, or at the least is a contributory violation of the end-users' violations.
  • First of all, you have to license each individual file. All of the code should be licensed individually per file. Now, because the artwork presummable doesn't link with the GPL'ed application (or is it one of those new fangled JPEG viruses? *grin*). The artwork can be under any license you want. It doesn't have to be GPL'ed now, because it isn't linked into the application. So you're distributing two different works on the same media. Datafiles don't have to have the same license as the data they operate on, or output. Your artwork license can be roughly the SPL (Soulless Public License), which is roughly you have to give me you're soul to use my works in any way shape or form, including merely reading the license or viewing the file in a file browser. It is legal (okay the my SPL example might not be). You can put it in the public domain and it is legal. You can put it into any old license you want and the artwork is legal.
  • if you distribute your images as XPM files they're basically C code which can be linked and distributed as GPL.

    the XPM file format just whacks a bunch of ascii data into a C compatible file which can be compiled by gcc.

  • Write the FSF. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:40PM (#3725686)


    > But how will the GPL license of the software affect their works?

    This seems to be a growing issue. E.g., there has been a recent discussion on the Freeciv [freeciv.org] mailing list, where they are actively trying to get their hands on improved graphics but want to be rigorous about licensing issues. (And alas, they had to reject some nice tilesets that various people have submitted because of dubious licensing status.)

    It seems to me that this would be worth writing the FSF about and seeing whether they are interested in providing a "content" license. They recently produced their GNU Free Documentation License [fsf.org] in recognition that the GPL doesn't cover everything, but that does not seem to be completely apt for game artwork (and other game content) either.

    They do link to another Design Science License [fsf.org] for data, which you may want to evaluate. But IMO it would be great if you could get the FSF to produce and defend a free content license (GCL?) that was explicitly defined to work like and with the GPL.

    The reason I think the FSF might take an interest is because so much new GPL'd software is GUI-oriented and requires graphics of one sort or another, and a basic corpus of free/licensed graphics might help free software take off in new areas like it has in infrastructure.

  • OK, this is 100% pure spam, and I'm a bit worried about slashdot reaction, but I figure you are going to need penguin pictures, right ? I just started selling a CD of Antarctic pictures [gdargaud.net], royalty-free.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close