Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-08 at 19:04 -0500, Terry Hancock
wrote:
> > Of course, this is somewhat moot. Why are they
using a CC license
> > for software? Use the GPL instead, it's much more
clear cut on
> > this issue.
>
> The example this started with actually had a game that
included
> by-2.0-licensed media, but that detail seems to have
gotten lost.
Games can be sensibly divided into "content" and
"engine". The
"engine" is an executable, the
"content" is the data the engine
works on. The copylefts of content and engine do not affect
each other. Thus it is perfectly sensible to have a GPL
engine
running CC content. (In fact, this is exactly the licensing
I'm using
on a project of my own).
Other examples of the same dichotomy exists: a word
processor,
versus the document processed, a compiler versus the
programs
it compiles, etc.
> There are already game projects that are using CC
licenses for level
> designs, interstitial video, graphics, and audio,
although the game
> engine itself uses the GPL or something similarly
program-oriented.
Right. The point is that the GPL takes care of your source
requirement, so the content is just content and CC
requirements
are generally adequate for that. So it's sort of
irrelevant whether
the CC licensing would force source distribution, because
the
GPL should take care of that.
OTOH, I like where parallel distribution retains the non-DRM
requirement.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
|