views:

93

answers:

2

In such a case what are the conditions that I need to fulfill to not violate GPL, LGPL, CC licences? Looking at wikipedia entry for CC, it seems I can use only CC-BY, and CC-SA license but I am not clear as to how and where in my book I need to add attribution for the author whose images (under CC-BY) I would use. It is also not clear that for CC-SA what do I need to do.

Although at lot of places meaning and implications for using GPL, LGPL, CC licenses are given but it is hard to find how to comply with these licenses. Adding LGPL and GPL licensing to artwork further complicates the matter. A person who is not a lawyer specially who deals in such laws find themselves in dark when dealing with these laws, restricting the adoption of these open licenses.

Any answers?

A: 

Why not ask the Free Software Foundation they can tell you the definitive.

Preet Sangha
Do you really think that FSF will really answer questions on a per user basis? What is the point of having an excellent community like StackOverflow if I had to ask directly FSF? If you don't believe me, try sending a question yourself and you might get a reply in a year's time frame :)
DivKis01
A: 

All of the above-mentioned licenses are pre-crafted cookie cutter solutions for non-lawyers such as yourself, which is to say the people using them haven't written them and more than likely haven't given a great deal of thought to fringe issues like this. Until you attempt to actually use an image under the given license, the ultimate authority isn't the license itself but the author; if you want to use an image in your book and you're unsure of the creator's desires, then contact them and politely ask permission for what you want to do. I'm not by any means an author but as I understand it, this is generally good practice in nearly all creative domains.

As far as the GPL is concerned: The FSF agrees with you that applying the GPL to non-software works is needlessly ambiguous and generally prefers the GNU Free Documentation License or Creative Commons for this. Someone who applies the GPL specifically to a picture in isolation probably doesn't understand it very well or realize its terminology is strongly oriented toward computer programs. In either case it becomes all the more worthwhile to seek their clarification of what exactly they were trying to accomplish in choosing the GPL.

Barring any progress with the above I'd offer a default answer of "Yes, you are bound to the terms of a copyleft license and must accordingly allow free distribution of your book". Anyone can redistribute GPL'd content to anyone and defensively you should assume this applies to your book, as there's no clear mapping between the terms of the GPL and your circumstances that would rule that out and it's not something for ordinary people to interpret. This a very strange situation that has never come to fruition in court as far as I'm aware, so there's little precedent. Litigation discussing the licensing of books and images in the metaphorical terms of computer software, libraries and source code would sound pretty surreal.

Fair use also comes into play and probably takes precedence over any of the above, but that's even murkier. The best way to sidestep all of this would be to just ask for explicit permission from the creator.

cikkle
So overall it seems that using a GPLed image in a book will make the book copyleft and anyone can copy it and distribute it without my permission. Though, I can still charge for the book, (highly unlikely that anyone will buy it unless it is a print). Not sure about using LGPL images but most likely makes the book copyleft. And lastly using CC-BY images in my book, is allowed and doesn't make it copyleft (that is anyone can copy it and share it without my permission) as long as I attribute the author of image and doesn't require me to license my book under CC-BY. Is that understanding correct?
DivKis01
I'm not so certain it's the case that the GPL is really that broadly applicable, but the general idea I have is that there's no obvious precedent for its application in this situation and it's not worth playing with fire, legally. IANAL. As far as I understand Creative Commons, SA (Share-alike) is the copyleft provision. CC-BY just requires attribution. On a tangent, I have copies of "Dive into Python" and "Real World Haskell" sitting on my bookshelf, both copylefted and made freely available online by the authors. People do pay for hard copies.
cikkle

related questions