4576e360$1@news.povray.org...

> Maybe I phrased this a little innaccurately. It seemed to me that the 
> majority considered that requiring credit to be given (Attribution) was 
> not practical or necessary for the collection. This seems to rule out the 
> CC licenses, the least restrictive of which still requires attribution 
> (although there is some text that introduces the concept of 
> 'reasonableness' appropriate to the medium).

The conditions in the CC licenses can be waived if necessary, so I don't 
think the credit is much an issue. I'm really under the impression that too 
much importance is given to the credit issue anyway. I've worked on scenes 
that used a lot of foreign material and credit was never a problem. We're 
talking POV-Ray scenes made by mostly individual artists, not large-scale 
F/OSS projects involving project teams and hundreds of dependencies.

I can only repeat what I've said in a previous post, which is that for 
non-programmers (at least for me...) the LGPL and others are completely 
abstruse and add some unecessary burden to the whole process. As someone who 
could want to reuse some snippet of code and possibly redistribute it, the 
CC-By is simple and clear enough. I can't say the same with a license that 
requires digging in a lengthy document that's using both legal and developer 
lingo (in a foreign language) to understand what one can and cannot do.

Example from the LGPL : "If a facility in the modified Library refers to a 
function or a table of data to be supplied by an application program that 
uses the facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility is 
invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the event 
an application does not supply such function or table, the facility still 
operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose remains meaningful."

It may makes sense for a developer, but for me it's Tagalog.

G.

Post a reply to this message