drom: i think GPL is more about software.. i released it under CC cos i think it is the best license in matter of artwork.
anyway, the real point is you can do all that you want with this background, and not because a license allows you to do it, but because the author (ehm.. me) is glad to see variations of his work!

Sorry, now CC is listed on gnu.org (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses), I didn't found it there before, seems to be new there.

Anyway, read comments there about it: "...There is literally no specific freedom that all Creative Commons licenses grant..."

Hope using Free Art licence will be possible soon here.

I read CC licence and I also know it is not compatible with GPL. And GPL is _VERY_ important for me.

deque: If it is "in fact the same" why not use GPL?

Are you mad, people? Can you please *read* the licence before complaining?

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Uhhh... How is the CC share-alike more restrictive than the GPL? The spirit of it is almost identical to the GPL. You can do what you want, but if you make derivative works and distribute them, you have to use the same license and credit the original author. I really honestly don't get the logic behind your complaint.

although the wallpaper is nice, i agree with drom. it's "sad" not to see GLP license on artwork.

This wallpaper is excellent, especially for public test computer on linux summits.

It's a pity this wallpaper is not free (as gnome its talking about). CC licence is not free for me (why not using GPL?).