License

[AndreaMonzini]

Hello,

great project !

I kindly ask why you changed the license from GPL to CC-BY-SA ?
I think that GPL license is more for software while creative commons for creative contents or documentation.
Both licenses require attribution and you have to keep the same license.
But in my opinion the most important difference is that with GPL there is a clear distinction of the "output":

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL

for example Blender use GPL license but the "output" like rendering, animation and video do not have to follow the GPL license:

https://www.blender.org/about/license/

In the case of CC BY SA , the "output" video from the CinePi project could be restricted to the same CC BY SA license !?
Because with the CC BY SA license there is not the "output" distinction so apparently if i use the CinePi software i should release the film or short film with the same license (the "share alike" of the CC BY SA )

By the way also the Creative Commons website suggests the use of different licenses for software:

https://creativecommons.org/about/software/

I am not a lawyer, just a free and open source supporter, but from my point of view the GPL license seems more appropriate for the CinePi software.
While the CC BY SA could be appropriate for the CinePi documentation ( wiki ).
Again the Blender example for the manual ( license CC BY SA ) while the software is GPL:

https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/copyright.html

Anyway very interesting project !
Thank you !

[schoolpost]

Hello,

great project !

I kindly ask why you changed the license from GPL to CC-BY-SA ? I think that GPL license is more for software while creative commons for creative contents or documentation. Both licenses require attribution and you have to keep the same license. But in my opinion the most important difference is that with GPL there a clear distinction of the output:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL

for example Blender use GPL license but the output like rendering, animation and video do not have to follow the GPL license:

https://www.blender.org/about/license/

In the case of CC BY SA , the output video from the CinePi project could be restricted to the same CC BY SA license !? Because with the CC BY SA license there is not the output distinction so apparently if i use the CinePi software i should release the film or short film with the same license (the "share alike" of the CC BY SA )

By the way also Creative Commons website suggests the use of different licenses for software:

https://creativecommons.org/about/software/

I am not a lawyer, just a free and open source supporter, but from my point of view the GPL license seems more appropriate for the CinePi software. While the CC BY SA could be appropriate for documentation ( wiki ). Again the Blender example for the manual ( license CC BY SA ):

https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/copyright.html

Anyway very interesting project ! Thank you !

Hi Andrea,

This repository only contains the CAD/3D models for the CinePI V2 camera I designed; which is more appropriately licensed with CC-BY-SA, and the underlying software is hosted in a separate repository: https://github.com/cinepi/cinepi-raw and linked to within this repo.

[AndreaMonzini]

Hello,
thank you for the answer.
about the software license i was referring to the alpha release software as a disk image of this repository:

https://github.com/schoolpost/CinePI/releases/download/v0.0.1-alpha/CinePI-V2-alpha.zip

and thank you for the CAD/3D models licensed with CC-BY-SA !

I am planning to test the project as soon i can find the components :)