[Hans-Christoph Steiner]->[[PD-ot] Art: To GPL or not to GPL?]->[03-12-15 11:21]
| |So I now that I am getting deeper into coding art projects, I am |beginning to think about how to make a living doing it. To make in the |art world, you need to make a name for yourself using your projects |(ideally, of course, there is also a ton of bullshit involved). Up til |now, I have released all software that I have written under the GPL |since I firmly believe that all software should be free. But now I am |thinking that there might need to be one minor caveat for some art |projects: the credit clause. | |I know all about the old BSD license and the problems with it, that is |why I am in a quandary about this. I am creating projects that anyone |could download and set up and, if released under the GPL, claim |complete credit for.
i dont get it. i thought the gpl was kinda saying: take it, do whatever you want with it as long as your product is rereleased _under the same license_ and _all original author information is left intact_ (unless your changes are so massive it counts as a differnt thing already).
so how could anyone claim complete credit for your work without violating that license?
| So I am thinking of releasing them under the |Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. | |So my particular question lies is trying to figure out what harm will |come of releasing art code with an Attribution clause. I believe that |some harm is inevitable, but I think it my be a necessary comprimise.