[squeak-dev] CC-licensed artwork?

Ian Trudel ian.trudel at gmail.com
Sun Apr 25 16:54:32 UTC 2010

Hi Bert,

The reason that I have mentioned CC license is because this is
something graphic designers understand and a lot of artworks is
available under CC. They might not be so familiar with MIT license.
CC-BY seems alright to me but it's a good idea to ask SFC.


2010/4/25 Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
> On 25.04.2010, at 06:02, Ian Trudel wrote:
>> Would Creative Common an acceptable license? Which other licenses
>> would be acceptable? (Board members, what do you think?)
> Hard to answer, and I wouldn't know whom to ask. SFC maybe? The MIT license makes no restrictions whatsoever. CC means "some rights reserved".
> All CC-NC variants are out obviously. CC-ND is impractical, we need to be able to modify stuff. And CC-SA does require sharing - which is not a bad thing in itself, but MIT does not require it.
> The only one I could imagine for inclusion in Squeak would be CC-BY, which only requires attribution, but has no further strings attached. But IANAL and every license we add complicates things. It would be better if it was simply given under MIT.
> - Bert -


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list