On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 23:05, Steven Garrity wrote: GPL I think, check the package license field. GPL doesn't 100% make sense for artwork, but it seems simplest. Havoc

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 00:05, Jonathan C. Sitte wrote: Well, not really. The GPL pretty clearly talks about software and code in the license. There are other licenses that are more designed for text or artwork. However, sort of standard practice is to ship a bunch of images with programs and not put a separate license on the images. So I guess on some level you can just say the images are part of the software. There's a lot of prior discussion of this, if you google you could probably find a list of licenses people have come up with and discussion of same. Havoc