Timeline for Licensing for artistic work used inside GPLv3 licensed software
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 15, 2015 at 15:48 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | If you modify the GPL license text, then you can't call it the GPL anymore (gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL). See also the copyright statement on the license itself (gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html) | |
| Sep 15, 2015 at 10:24 | comment | added | sunyata | Thank you again for your help, can i ask for another favor, could you give references/sources as well? The answer you have is different from the other one given here and i'm unsure which to go with | |
| Sep 13, 2015 at 9:11 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau |
You should not modify the text of the GPL license itself, but you should mention somewhere (for example, in a README document) that the resources have their own license. Then add a separate LICENSE document with the correct license terms to your res folder. You could use, for example, the CC-BY-ND license for the resources.
|
|
| Sep 13, 2015 at 8:59 | comment | added | sunyata | Thank you for this info, do you also know if we need to add a text to the GPLv3 license to make clear the separation of the image resources and the code? Right now we are using the standard GPLv3 license given by GitHub: link | |
| Sep 13, 2015 at 8:28 | history | answered | Bart van Ingen Schenau | CC BY-SA 3.0 |