Clarify licence of guix.gnu.org screenshots

  • Open
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
2 participants
  • Maxime Devos
  • Tobias Geerinckx-Rice
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice
Severity
normal
T
T
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote on 8 Apr 2022 18:01
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
1e97dfb9757a91423af6dd164b558fd9@tobias.gr
Guix,

Devin Ulibarri from the FSF rightfully pointed out that the licence of,
obvious. It should be made so on the Web page itself.

From memory I'd say these are ‘public domain’, and [0] concurs, but I
doubt [0] was explicitly intended to cover these images not contributed
by Luis Felipe.

My Web mail can't find it, but there's an ongoing thread about
relicencing the blog posts to CC-(BY?)-SA-whatever 4.0. If it applies
well to images (and I think it does), that or CC0 seem like the two
obvious choices.

Kind regards,

T G-R

Sent from a Web browser. Excuse or enjoy my brevity.

[0]:
— last section.
T
T
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote on 8 Apr 2022 18:15
(name . Tobias Geerinckx-Rice)(address . me@tobias.gr)(address . 54794@debbugs.gnu.org)
72ff546ea67b666ebce3392c7ec44026@tobias.gr
On 2022-04-08 18:01, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix
wrote:
Toggle quote (2 lines)
> or CC0

…was probably a stupid suggestion, as some of these images embed at
least the CC-BY-SA 4.0 GNU Guix logo.

(One wonders: are screenshots of incompatibly-licenced software
artworks… illegal?)

Kind regards,

T G-R

Sent from a Web browser. Excuse or enjoy my brevity.
M
M
Maxime Devos wrote on 8 Apr 2022 21:24
(name . Tobias Geerinckx-Rice)(address . me@tobias.gr)(address . 54794@debbugs.gnu.org)
c7a66e00e63c7e22d3d7686eeb8579b75e1a9423.camel@telenet.be
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix schreef op vr 08-04-
2022 om 18:15 [+0200]:
Toggle quote (11 lines)
> On 2022-04-08 18:01, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix
> wrote:
> > or CC0
>
> …was probably a stupid suggestion, as some of these images embed at
> least the CC-BY-SA 4.0 GNU Guix logo.
>
> (One wonders: are screenshots of incompatibly-licenced software
> artworks… illegal?)
>

Wikimedia people have thought about things like this:

AFAICT they haven't looked into what happens if its a screenshot of
multiple sofware things with incompatible licenses (e.g. some GPL-2-
only and some GPL-3-only software) though ...

Greetings,
Maxime.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iI0EABYKADUWIQTB8z7iDFKP233XAR9J4+4iGRcl7gUCYlCMCxccbWF4aW1lZGV2
b3NAdGVsZW5ldC5iZQAKCRBJ4+4iGRcl7qgjAQCEDHzFtN+uPOMjmJSzToCDuyIg
Vi2i2Ep08DvmovGMjwD+K8/tD7tO1ffUdR3gcKJEZ2evlZQeFuCUelKrGYJZRg4=
=l6nC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


?
Your comment

Commenting via the web interface is currently disabled.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 54794@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 54794
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch