Thif gif file is a really old one.
The best thing should be to convert it to png and to make it transparent.
I need to modify several files to do this.
The problem will be with addons using this licensing: dynamicweb
At the same time, I constat we use the Creative Commons license version 2.5.
My question is: Could we migrate to version 4.0 ?
I didn’t find differences between 2.5 and 4.0 but perhaps that I missed something.
Thif gif file is a really old one.
Isn’t Creative Commons a license for content?
So what license to use must be up to each and every user?
And as a Software/Web Design License, wouldn’t it be up to you as the developer/designer of the web pages to define the license for web design?
PS. This is a question more than a comment.
Just as a side note, I have a lot of documents linked to my research that can not be published as creative common, and the same have most other people that do genealogy research.
In addition, It’s a lot of my research I do not want to publish as any type of Creative Commons, because that can stop me from creating a book or publish a commercial article with the same content later.
And… We all must respect the Licenses that the original documents are published under…
And If anyone try to force a license on my content, I can’t use that software or service… And the same will be for a lot of other people doing research and that want to publish their research…
Sorry. I had intended to send that as a private email. The image was a PNG with transparency (converted with GIMP)
The creative common is used only for web reports created by gramps (narrative web, calendar, dynamicweb).
For those reports, you can set the private mode for the documents you can’t share.
If you create others documents (odf, pdf,…), I am not sure we add a license for that.
I looked at the index pages from my narrative web and did not see any Creative Commons notice. Nor was there one in the one html file I opened in a editor. But I did find a CC notice in a style sheet. Each of the webpages has a copyright notice with my name.
Is the intent to have the html files protected by Creative Commons or just the style sheets? I can see the look and feel of the webpages being protected by CC since that was created by the Gramps project.
I am 100% supportive of protecting the Gramps code with Creative Commons but I’d rather have the ability to protect my family research data, including reports and webpages, as I see fit.
It depends on what you select for the license in the “Html options” tab of the narrative web.
You have 8 choices:
- Standard copyright
- Creative common - By attribution
- Creative common - By attribution - No derivations
- Creative common - By attribution - Share_alike
- Creative common - By attribution - Non-commercial
- Creative common - By attribution - Non-commercial, No derivations
- Creative common - By attribution - Non-commercial, Share_alike
- No copyright notice
Many people release software under fairly generous CC licenses.
I was merely speaking of updating the graphic file used in the footer so that it blends into the color scheme.
The larger question of which licensing applies is well beyond the scope of my suggestion to tweak the image.
The graphic has since been changed to a very aliased GIF (which only supports 1 bit of transparency). To use transparency with, it really needs to be a PNG (which support 8 bits of alpha level - 256 levels of transparency.)
Yes, as it is now, it doesnt look very nice…
Thank you. That is a very reasonable set of options and resolves my concern.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.