An SVG is an image

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@Edent

I would apply a Creative Commons licence (assuming that one did what I wanted).

In the same vein, I think that one could argue that a PDF is (or could be) executable, but I'd still pick a CC licence for the document itself.

[naturepunk@ecoevo.social]

@Edent Duel licence CC-BY and MIT?

[pbloem@sigmoid.social]

@Edent

Depends on what you make with it. If I write a novel but save it in a .py file, it should probably be CC licensed.

[julian@fietkau.social]

@Edent I'm voting CC because any time I've ever wanted to incorporate an SVG file into another work, that other work was an image or some other kind of visual document, not a piece of software.

Trying to imagine the implications of using a GPL-licensed SVG image in a PowerPoint slide deck. I supposed the pptx file is technically also XML...

[krazov@mstdn.social]

@Edent I would say, depends more on the purpose: if it's an image in the first place, then CC, otherwise—software licence.

[metaphase@toot.community]

@Edent PDFs carry the same dilemma. Maybe a different threshold because reuse or derivation of postscript with code like modifications from the document is much less common. On the other hand postscript is more directly turing-complete, and is SVG but with embeds or more indirections

[pmdj@mstdn.social]

@Edent For the usual case of "I made this image/animation", I'd say CC, in the same way you'd CC-licence a HTML-published blog post. If what you're trying to share is specifically the code causing that image/animation to be generated, especially in a way that you're encouraging others to modify the code to make or incorporate into their own images, then perhaps something else. But the point would presumably be for those downstream users to share THEIR creations, so consider what would suit them.

[edent@mastodon.social]

@julian You've never used an SVG asset in piece of software? Like an icon, illustration, or similar?

And, yes, I'm fully on board with PPTX being GPL

[alec@perkins.pub]

@Edent it would probably have to be both depending on objectives, since a software license would not allow someone to share a PNG version of the image the same way Creative Commons would. I think open icon libraries sometimes do this.

[edent@mastodon.social]

@pbloem

weather="stormy"
print(f"It was a dark and {weather} night")

[jamesoff@mastodon.jamesoff.net]

@neil @Edent the PostScript part is literally an interpreted language

[fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.net]

@Edent so are fonts.

[jamesoff@mastodon.jamesoff.net]

@neil @Edent I did a thing at work with my team where we wrote a "who is presenting next" thing in a bunch of different languages, and one of mine was PostScript. You render/print the file to find out who it is

Build software better, together

GitHub is where people build software. More than 150 million people use GitHub to discover, fork, and contribute to over 420 million projects.

GitHub (github.com)

[zudnick@mas.to]

@Edent You know, I'd give serious consideration to using the Filthy Human Hands (FHH) License (https://whirling.top/fhh) or something similar.

[julian@fietkau.social]

@Edent As standalone files, probably a few times, yeah that's fair. The technical separation makes it pretty easy to put something in the readme about the source code being this license and assets being that license.

I can only think of one time when I distributed an image as an integrated part of the actual source code for specific convenience reasons, and that one happened to be a PNG: https://correct.webfinger-canary.fietkau.software/source.py (at the bottom)

[pointlessone@status.pointless.one]

@metaphase PDF, in principle, can have embedded executable JS scripts.
@Edent