> Although I'm not a legal expert I believe that work can be distributed by
> the owner under multiple licenses and conditions. I believe that anything
> you've done that is already in the public domain could also be distributed
> under the CC-LGPL. The site allows you to incorporate comments or
> documentation alongside the contribution in which you can clarify that
> it's in the public domain or that it's also available under other
> licenses. If there are elements of your work currently licensed under
> CC-Attribution that you wished to also make available on this site under
> CC-LGPL, then I think you can do so (and they'd certainly be very much
> appreciated :o))
Thanks Chris for your answer.
I participated (briefly) in that discussion and my opinion hasn't really
changed, i.e. that the LGPL is more suited to programming than to the
dissemination of artwork, where attribution is important (or can be waived
if the author wants it). I chose the CC-BY license years ago for that
About a multiple license, I see on wikipedia that it's possible in certain
cases. However, in the present case, it would be quite confusing for users
since CC-BY and LPGL have different (and contradictory) conditions.
Particularly, I really don't want to force users to use the GPL if they want
to redistribute my work and the CC-BY is extremely lax about redistribution.
For instance, as I'm often releasing objects with bitmaps, I want people to
be able to use (and possibly redistribute) the bitmaps without thinking
twice about it. Likewise, when I put something in the public domain, it is
my wish to waive all my rights and it would be strange to disseminate the
work separately under a more restrictive license!
Wikimedia Commons offers, IMHO, a friendlier and more adaptative way to deal
with the license problem, which is to allow users to choose among several
free licenses (including Public Domain). Perhaps that would be something to
consider at a later stage for the POV-Ray object collection.
Post a reply to this message