| |||||||||||||
The GPL is not fine for documentation ...The GPL is not fine for documentation ...Posted Jul 5, 2012 14:07 UTC (Thu) by jthill (guest, #56558)In reply to: The GPL is not fine for documentation ... by JoeBuck Parent article: Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment
Likewise, if you create an image with the GIMP and GPL it, a JPEG or PNG of the image does not suffice for distribution. The XCF has to be retained, and made available to any recipient of the image.I think that's not true, that you can license your own work in any form on any terms. If you offer a GPL'd XCF then redistributors have to offer that as well, but if you separately or only offer a GPL'd JPEG, redistributors only need to offer that.
(Log in to post comments)
The GPL is not fine for documentation ... Posted Jul 6, 2012 4:43 UTC (Fri) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]
You can, but redistributors cannot. If they modify the XCF, they cannot distribute it as JPG alone, because it's not the preferred form for modification.
|
|||||||||||||