"Chris B" <c_b### [at] btconnectcomnospam> wrote in message 
news:4576c842$1@news.povray.org...
> I'll attempt to summarise the discussions from this 'licensing' thread so 
> far and to draw some conclusions. It seems to me that we're moving towards 
> a general consensus on the main issues, so if we can address any remaining 
> concerns then we should hopefully be able to draw this part of the 
> discussion to a close pretty soon. Please feel free to comment if you 
> think I've got stuff wrong or if you just disagree with it.
>

There don't seem to have been any postings on this subject for a couple of 
days. I'm not sure whether that means we've reached a concensus or whether 
everyones just hacked off with the discussion.

I'll assume it means that we've reached a concensus unless:
  1.  anyone can suggest a clever way of waiving the 'Attribution' clause of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license without requiring us to manage 
waiver signatures, or
  2.  anyone has an alternative license that would better suit our needs,

It seems to me that we're down to using LGPL with a statement to clarify 
that images generated using contributions to the collection become the 
property of the user, even if they're pretty close/identical to what you get 
when you just render the SDL provided.

I would suggest that we use the CC LGPL version, because it incorporates a 
human readable deed.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message