Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Shane Ambler wrote:
> >On 23/8/2006 18:17, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 10:38 schrieb Koen Martens:
> >>>You are probably right. If the goal is to let anyone use the
> >>>graphics in any way they want, why have a license at all??
> >>Because under international copyright law, if there is no license (or some
> >>other explicit permission), you don't have the right to do anything with
> >>the
> >>work.
> >>
> >>>The main point is, however, that it is not completely clear how the
> >>>BSD license, a software license, applies to graphics. So maybe there
> >>>is nothing wrong with having the BSD license, but that is not really
> >>>clear to me (and perhaps others).
> >>In computing, there is only software, hardware, and wetware. Computer
> >>graphics are also software.
>
> The BSD license really doesn't apply itself to software very well.
Huh!? That's news to me. Can you elaborate a bit?
> I don't see what the problem with Creative Commons is. It is quickly
> becoming the license standard for creative works.
Creative Commons is not a license. If you point at a specific CC
license we can discuss things, otherwise everyone is just handwaving.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
