Launchpad itself

GPLv3 source + media files licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND

Asked by k0wax

All my project's files are GPLv3 licensed source code, but the graphics isn't.

I've read other issues like this one https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/41695
I understand that BY-NC-ND is definitly non-free.

The problem is that NC-SA or ND or NC-ND license is needed to protect the media from "forking".
Without it everybody can do some minor changes and sell the entire project under custom name as it his own work (original authors shall be in "credits" but this don't make sense)
The source code well protected by GPL and any changes will back to community, but what about the media?

I think partial NC/ND projects should be also accepted. Maybe even only ND, becouse its free for destribution.

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
Launchpad itself Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
Brad Crittenden
Solved:
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Best Brad Crittenden (bac) said : 		#1

Hi k0wax,

Thanks for your question about the licensing requirements on Launchpad.

We do require projects to have licenses that are not NC, meaning they do not discriminate against commercial use of their project. As you point out, the GPLv3 license has no such restriction and you have applied it to your code.

If you choose a CC license that requires attribution that will prevent someone else from using your work while not giving you credit. It is true he may profit from your work but that situation is true of all open source projects. I do not understand why you wish to draw a distinction between a line of code or a widget, icon, or picture. We insist on projects allowing commercial use as it serves to increase the adoption of open source software and allows people to use the software as they see fit.

I do not share your conclusion that ND (no derivatives) projects should be accepted. The open source community thrives on the creation of derivative works so we definitely would not wish to accept a ND license as one that is "free".

I'm happy to continue this discussion if you wish but at this point we are not inclined to change our licensing policy for non-code portions of projects.

Revision history for this message
k0wax (k0wax) said : 		#2

I agree about NC. NC content cannot be shipped with a linux system (which can be sold) for example, its clear for me.

Launchpad accept MPL, and MPL itself allows copyrighted material.
"""Unlike strong copyleft licenses, the code under the MPL may be combined with proprietary files in one program ("Larger Work")
""" (c) wikipedia
For example Mozilla Firefox has copyright for its name (i.e. firefox is a registred trademark) and for the artwork.
They need it becouse they don't want to see, idk, Microsoft Firefox. If someone do this, he should change the name and add a new artwork, and its becomes "different from original".
see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_conflict_between_Debian_and_Mozilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat

The reason of ND for my project is "if you want to fork the _entire_ project, use your own graphics/sound/etc". I don't want to see how somebody change the color of the units and release it with small comment in readme about the original work.
Same as this for example was the main reason for ADOM author to not public its source code at all, becouse he wont see lots of low-quality clones of his work.

GPL+ND or +NC-ND should be almost as MPL+copyright.
Where is actually no big reason to Launchpad to allow that. Maybe I will public media package on a different host. But anyway ND does good work for projects like I describe above.