[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Re: K-ARTIST:artwork license
From:       ante <vitanova () softhome ! net>
Date:       2002-04-01 18:59:06
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sunday 31 March 2002 23:55, Torsten Rahn wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 31. März 2002 13:56 schrieb ante:
> > On Sunday 31 March 2002 01:57, luciash d' being wrote:
> > > > Yes, otherwise KDE could end in trouble." No discussion of the GPL
> > > > part.
> > >
> > > of course. i think it is not possible to use mac or any other original
> > > commercially based os artwork in kde :(
>
> Not only would this put us legally into trouble but even more PR-wise:
> If you want to promote some new stuff you want to have your own original
> look and feel to set yourself apart from others and to make people realize
> that your product is different from the other one they are already using.
>
> > > why we don't speak even about the Artistic License (any version)?
> >
> > I mentioned the Artistic license just below.
>
> From the licenses I have seen so far the Artistic license would fit best
> and would probably have the same meaning as the "free for commercial and
> non-commercial usage/distribution/modification as long as you give proper
> credits" -sermon I have been asking for :-)

Many find it important to ensure the work stays free (as in speech). Both the 
artistic license and your sermon do not do that. 


>
> > What is commercial software? Mandrake is commercial, it is a company,
> > they
>
> Yes, that's always the problem people don't realize.
> I am very much opposed to a GPL-like license for artwork as it is really a
> PITA to have such artwork in CVS:
>
> All stuff that goes into kdelibs has got to be LGPL or BSD-licensed (that's
> a _required_ item for kdelibs. Especially for stuff like icons which people
> tend to reuse between different CVS-modules and move and copy it would
> really be difficult to have various licenses among the >1500 pixmaps.
> For wallpapers and themes which stay outside kdelibs and which aren't that
> numerous different licenses would be quite ok imho.

It is good to have themes have their own license, I agree.


>
> > can not become proprietary. GPL and LGPL take care of that. BSD license
> > does not ensure (art)work stays free. Public domain implies that you wave
> > your copyright, you have no control left at all.
>
> In countries like germany you can never ever loose your copyright on the
> stuff you have created anyways.
>
> > Once it is Public Domain, you lost your copyright. You have no control
> > left
>
> That's not correct in countries like germany. You simply can't loose it
> there.

OK, yet I understand that is not the case everywhere. 

>
> > There are 1700+ icons in KDE, we can not say: 53 % of them are GPL, the
>
> Exactly - see my comment above.
>
> > Technically, we can say: it used to be published under the LGPL, so
> > almost everything is under the LGPL. It is best to go on publishing
> > everything under the LGPL.
>
> As I already said: I was told by a lawyer that the GPL/LGPL might not be
> good licenses for artwork. Also I am not opposed to somebody using some of
> my work in proprietary software.
> There are just too many different situations where this gets complicated:
>
> - imagine a company which creates proprietary KDE-software: If they wanted
> to use some KDE-icons to create the look and feel of a KDE-application and
> if they would have to modify some icons to adjust them to their set of
> features they wouldn't use KDE's icons.

They can under Section 6 of the LGPL. What they do can be proprietary, the 
artwork stays LGPLed. 

> - imagine some company which would produce a software which would be free
> in some cases and proprietary in others (or using some extensions). This
> would create some difficulties as well (Trolltech or Klarälvdalens
> Datakonsult or Ximian would be an example for this).

They can under Section 6 of the LGPL.

>
> And last but not least: personally I feel honored if people use my icons in
> their software (as long as they give proper credits) no matter if it is
> proprietary or free software. I have been an advocate for free software for
> quite some time but I do understand that in some situations people have
> their reasons to keep their work proprietary.
>
> I also could imagine though that I produce some artwork that I would not
> like to see in proprietary applications. But that would rather be the fact
> for themes or wallpapers, true pictures or something like that.
>
> > > i agree it is not good enough to use just a sentence as a license but i
> > > am for using Artistic License
>
> Yes, that sounds better to me as well. The only reason I haven't done this
> until now is that I am not really aware of the differences between the
> "free for ..." and the Artistic License.


Many find it important to ensure the work stays free (as in speech). The 
artistic license does not do that, if I understand it correctly. 



>
> Greetings,
> Tackat


Cordialemente,

Ante



******

http://home.uwnet.nl/~vita

_______________________________________________
kde-artists mailing list
kde-artists@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]