[PD-ot] Art: To GPL or not to GPL?

[august]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, RTaylor wrote:
>  In other words you want CREDIT. ... Like "Nigel Rathbone's Tales of Trailers"
> or "Marimba Freidkiens Kitchen Sexuality".
> 
>  Somehow that just doesn't seem to be in keeping with the concept of open
> source. It also strikes me as being overly pretentious... Like I'd be much more
> likely to simply use your idea and write my own code. {Like most everyone else
> would.} If I were to attribute someone that heavily it would be out of
> respect... not because of some clause in a contract...

attribution is very important.  I've started a pure software project
before, where I came up with the idea and design, sat and coded this
project from the ground up side-by-side with another guy for two straight
years.  eventually, as the software became better and better, the guy
wanted all of the recognition.  after a break-up, my code (mostly gui
stuff) was just tossed to the side and my name was nowhere to be found on
the website (his server) or in the copyright anywhere.  It sucks to loose
two years like that.  And, this was not even 'art'. 

Richard Stallman is another example.  How many times have you heard him
say "It's GNU/Linux" not "Linux".  He's bitter that some dopey finnish lad
is getting most of the limelight for something into which he put most of
the grunt work.

attribution is not to be underestimated, especailly in creative fields
such as software development or art, where your livelyhood is based on
what YOU do.  Assuming you want to make a living from what you do (as
apposed to programming on the side as a hobby).  you will need to take the
attribution thing seriously.


-august.




>  I've always seen that sort of thing as a sort of way of sucking off of the
> authors reputation in order to advertise a product, anyway.  Why don't you wait
> until you have one and then re-negotiate your contract?
> 
>  I mean... Take a look at the posters here...
> 
> http://www.ricksmovie.com/
>