License for application name and logos (Was: Creative Commons license for pictures)

Patrice Dumas pertusus at
Fri Sep 30 09:36:21 UTC 2005

On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:11:21AM +0200, Christian Jodar wrote:
> Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > we dual licenced the images.
> I thought about this solution. But I thought this could not do what I'd like to.
> The creators logos have only one wish: Being know as the logos creator and
> keep its paternity. CC BY-SA does that well. But GPL does not. So with dual
> license, anybody could use the pictures with the GPL one and then the
> attribution will be lost.

I don't think CC BY-SA does attribution really better than GPL, but a
bit differently. Both are copylefts. In the CC BY-SA the attribution is 
maybe more explicit, but it is formulated such that it doesn't impose 
to do anything besides what it required to put the copyright somewhere, 
so I don't think it offers better attribution, as seems to be implied 
by the use of the word "reasonable". Here are some quotes of the CC 
BY-SA that seems relevant to me:

"and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means 
You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of...."


"Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, 
that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such 
credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and 
in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit."

The part that seems similar to me in the GPL is

"    a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
    stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."

and the part about displaying the copyright in interactive software.

The difference seems to be in the part "in a manner at least as prominent 
as such other comparable authorship credit", which isn't enforced by the
GPL, so in a GPL work there is no requirement that, if a copyright holders 
appears somewhere all the copyright holders also appears. However, in 
practice, for artwork covered by the GPL, all the copyright holder are 
likely to appear in a file explaining who are the authors of artwork.

So the only difference between GPL and CC BY-SA is that you cannot credit
more the author of some artwork with the CC BY-SA than the other artwork
authors, so for example you cannot credit an author of artwork twice and 
the others once, although this is possible with the GPL. In any case you 
have to credit the authors, at least by explaining who is copyright holder
for what. The CC BY-SA imposes credit equality, and the GPL doesn't that is
the only difference.

I may be wrong, I just deduced that by looking at the licences.


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list