On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 10:13 +0200, Luca Foppiano wrote: > > I'm trying to understand better his points because I think are a bit > restrictive. I'll let you know. Second reply from tom spot :) " [...] > uhm, I would like to better understand your points, are you sure this > policy is not a bit restrictive? > > I think the "selling point" on the licence is related to brushes, not to derived artworks. If you sell fedora, you don't sell the brushes, but a work made with it. The brushes are used in indirectly way. > > I think copying the full web page is intended to avoid stealing idea and web page, for example if I copy his webpage and I show as mine. > > What do you think? I think I didn't look closely enough. :) The link you sent me is to the Brush author's interpretations of how he/she thinks the license that they have chosen works. I mistook this for the actual license. The actual license that they are using for the brushes is Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 (which ironically, is what I suggested that you ask if we could use). This license is fine for Fedora. We do need to be sure that we give the original author of the brushes attribution credit. A text file which accompanies the art that gives credit to the brush author and a link to the brush website should be sufficient. Btw, the author really doesn't understand how the CC-BY license actually works. However, please don't correct their misunderstandings, because I suspect they would choose a different license that we would have problems using. :) [...] " Luca -- Today is Setting Orange, the 17th day of Discord in the YOLD 3175 The faster I go, the behinder I get. -- Lewis Carroll _______________________________________________ Fedora-art-list mailing list Fedora-art-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-art-list
