Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   David Revoy (davidrevoy@framapiaf.org)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jan-2025 02:13:28 JST David Revoy

   I'm sharing my new 2025-01 Krita brush bundle under CC-0/Public Domain, I hope you'll like them!
   Blog post to download: https://www.davidrevoy.com/article1060/krita-brushes-2025-01-bundle

   #krita

   • Puniko ? likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Puniko ? (puniko@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jan-2025 02:43:13 JST Puniko ?

     in reply to

     @davidrevoy@framapiaf.org thank you very much :neocat_heart:

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jan-2025 18:45:20 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @davidrevoy Very nice, but I would have personally published them under AGPLv3-or-later myself.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jan-2025 19:15:48 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @davidrevoy >they can have a viral effect
     The freedom doesn't spread like a virus - someone has to take the explicit choice to take part of the spider plant and have the freedom grow.
     
     >potentially requiring derivative artworks to be open-sourced.
     The AGPLv3 is a free software license - it does not say "open" in it, or require such a thing.
     
     For derivative works, only people who receive a modified derivative work or has their computation done by such modified version needs to be provided a copy - you can choose to not provide a copy and not do some users computation and if so, you don't need to give that user anything.
     
     I don't see how it would be a bad thing if artworks were released under a free license, but under section 7 you can add an exception the the AGPLv3-or-later header that ensures such doesn't result;
     "As a special exception, if you create a artwork which uses these brushes, and/or embed these brushes or unaltered portions of these brushes into the artwork, these brushes do not by themself cause the resulting artwork to be covered by the relevant GNU Affero General Public License version. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the artwork might be covered by the relevant GNU Affero General Public License version. If you modify these brushes, you may extend this exception to your version of the brushes, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version."
     
     >but might not be ideal for creative assets.
     Please do not devalue your artworks by referring to them to something as interchangeable as "assets".
     
     The AGPLv3 is suitable for anything that is copyrightable with a source form.
   • Embed this notice
     David Revoy (davidrevoy@framapiaf.org)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jan-2025 19:15:49 JST David Revoy

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki Appreciate your choice, but a note on copyleft licenses for resources like brushes, textures, or patterns: they can have a viral effect, potentially requiring derivative artworks to be open-sourced.
     AGPLv3-or-later is a great choice for code, but might not be ideal for creative assets.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jan-2025 22:19:42 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @davidrevoy >But isn't it complex to patch a license with a custom exception for end users?
     It isn't a license patch - it's an license exception that is quite trivial to add to the license notice.
     
     With brushes under AGPLv3-or-later+Brushes-Exemption, on viewing the license (what they should do), the user will immediately know that the AGPLv3-or-later applies to the brushes, but not the works drawn with the brushes.
     
     >creative assets
     creative works
     
     >We concluded it's safer for users to have (brushes, textures, patterns) in CC-0/Public Domain.
     Unfortunately, legally it's less safe for the users, as public domain doesn't really exist in many countries and I'm not that confident in the validity of the fallback license in such countries and CC0 also explicitly doesn't grant a patent license (which is not relevant in this case, but can burn people in other cases).
     
     I'm more confident in the validity of the WPDD; https://wpdd.info/ but unfortunately it isn't ready yet.
   • Embed this notice
     David Revoy (davidrevoy@framapiaf.org)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jan-2025 22:19:44 JST David Revoy

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki Thanks for the clarification. I understand the nuance of AGPLv3 and the exception clause in section 7. But isn't it complex to patch a license with a custom exception for end users?

     I'll stick with CC0/Public Domain, as previously discussed with the Mypaint and Krita teams. We concluded it's safer for users to have creative assets (brushes, textures, patterns) in CC-0/Public Domain.