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. It is
like using the GPL for documentation. There is a reason the Free
Documentation License was created.
I don't see what the problem with Creative Commons is. It is quickly
becoming the license standard for creative works.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
