Page 1 of 1
GPL for art
Posted: 13 Jun 2017, 01:48
by halbe
I've been looking around at art licenses and I want to use one like GPL that doesn't require attribution like CC-BY-SA. Anyone got any ideas?
Re: GPL for art
Posted: 13 Jun 2017, 06:54
by psi29a
GPL-3.0 always requires attribution composed at the minimum of a copyright statement, a notice and the GPL license text. Attribution examples are provided at the bottom of the license text.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#howto
That being said, why would you not want attribution? If you didn't want that, why not just use CC0?
Who is going to enforce the license if there is no attribution? Only you can defend your copyright, expecting others to do it for you is wishful thinking.
Re: GPL for art
Posted: 19 Jun 2017, 05:57
by halbe
psi29a wrote: ↑13 Jun 2017, 06:54
GPL-3.0 always requires attribution composed at the minimum of a copyright statement, a notice and the GPL license text. Attribution examples are provided at the bottom of the license text.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#howto
That being said, why would you not want attribution? If you didn't want that, why not just use CC0?
Who is going to enforce the license if there is no attribution? Only you can defend your copyright, expecting others to do it for you is wishful thinking.
Well I was hoping I'd be able to use a license that only ever restricted people from not allowing others to share (so it'd be CC-SA) because I don't want to force people to have to cite me (I know it's minor) but I can see how that would be impossible to enforce, I think I'll just stick with CC-BY-SA because what counts as a "source" for visuals and audio files could become confusing.