On the importance of citable license grants
For documenting copyright and licenses of assets I use, I found that I prefer a written license grant. It feels a bit awkward to justify lagality with something like "On the origin web page there is an icon with GPL 2.0 on it.". At least for two reasons:
- Unless one has undergone the submission process themselves, one might think that icon is an ad for the GPL. I am exaggerating, of course, but the connection between the submission and the license is somewhat implicit, unless in writing.
- I don't want to prophesy any doom, but there is no guarantee that the origin web page is still available in, say, 20 years. (Especially since keeping this website alive requires a non-negligible amount of money and work.) Or that at that time it still documents how it looked today.
Many submissions already have an explicit grant in their text part. Or, if the submitted file is an archive, inside that.
What I am going to do, is to add an explicit written license grant to all submissions of mine which don't already have one. And for art I use I will ask the authors for one.