Why the GPL?

After releasing the artwork under the restrictions of the GNU General Public License
some people asked questions about the formal conditions and if this license would be
appropriate to graphical works as well as to software.

For me the answer to the last question is yes:


Free Use

With licensing the graphics under the GPL I want to enable people to use my artwork, 
modify it, print it for whatever purpose without giving it a second thought 
(like what they're used with GPL-software).


Distributing Files

If you distribute my graphic FILES (as png, jpg, pdf) to the public you have 
to provide the source (XCF, PSD, etc.). That can be done (if you didn't modify 
it) by providing a copy of my xcf or by a link to my page.

If you distribute a modified version of the file you should provide a copy of 
your modified source or be willing to give it out to anyone who asks.
The last doesn't seem to be too hard to fulfill: If you only made a small
jpeg out of it - what chance do you think there is, that somebody begs you to 
give him the source. But if - against the odds - that someone approaches you, 
you would want to help him anyway.

So I see in analogy to the software world a jpeg-picture as binary and 
a xcf-File as source, containing layers, transparencys, full colour information 
etc. that gives you a real possibility to change the artwork. Changing a jpeg 
is of course possible but much inferior to having the source (but of course 
a lot easier than to disassemble binaries in the software-world).

The purpose is, that newer and better versions of this work can spread as well
as my own ones - for instance when Debian releases its next version.


Distributing CDs with the artwork printed on them is free use. No restrictions.

To hand out CDs or DVDs with the artwork printed on it is in my eyes just a USE of 
the picture. The purpose is not to distribute the picture but the content of 
the CDs/DVDs. So it's a bit out of focus to bind anybody to provide source-files 
of the pictures that are printed on the CDs they are selling. 
This makes no sense and I for sure do not want it. 
(You do not expect anybody to hand out copies of the mozilla-code just for 
the reason he uses firefox.)


Why not the Free Art License?

Some people asked me, why I didn't use the Free Art License. The problem I have 
with it: It seems to require to specify my name on all the copies. (Correct me, 
if I am wrong.) This restriction would be OK if it only meant the distribution 
of the graphic FILES, but I worry, the Free Art License would also demand from you to 
mention my name on the CD/DVDs as well. I wouldn't want that. Thousands of 
contributors to Debian should be mentioned first, if you start printing names 
on the CDs at all. So with the GNU GPL nobody has to worry about that too.


Ulrich Hansen, 2nd of May 2007