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

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    K-ARTIST:Fwd: Re: license for artwork
From:       ante <vitanova () softhome ! net>
Date:       2002-04-04 10:23:30
[Download RAW message or body]

In a second e-mail, Andreas Pour was more elaborate, more sharp, and more convincing. A strong case against the use of the LGPL for artwork. 

Ante

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: license for artwork
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:44:59 -0600
From: Andreas Pour <pour@mieterra.com>
To: vitanova@softhome.net

ante wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Thank you very much for your answer.

[ ... ]

> > look at the "core" definitions to see what I mean:
> > >  A "library" means a collection of software functions
> > > and/or data prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application
> > > programs (which use some of those functions and data) to form
> > > executables.&nbsp;
> >
> > So clearly art is not a "library", but the whole license is about
> > "libraries".
>
> Following the core definition, a 'library' can be a collection of data,
> say, images.
>
> 'library' is mainly used in the preamble. The conditions apply mostly to a
> 'Library'. A' Library' is a 'library' or a 'work'. So, a 'Library' can be a
> 'work' fi a collection of artwork.

Hiya,

I don't care to argue about this, really, so I will just repeat, that
the LGPL is not suitable for artwork in my opinion.  Just to explain a
bit better, I give a few examples, again I do not care to debate
further, take my advice or leave it, but I think I probably understand
this stuff better than most people.

First, Section 1 says:  "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of
the Library's complete source code as you receive it, in any medium,
provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy
an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty;."  Say
"Library" means a modem icon.  Even if you can twist the definition of
"Source code" to somehow apply to this icon, how can you possibly
"publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of
warranty"?  You can't.  Therefore, you lack the right to redistribute
it.  (Some image formats *do* permit comments, not all image formats do,
and, in particular, PNG images, which PNG uses for all icons, do not.)

Second, if you modify the Library ("icon"), you must comply with all of
Section 2.  Paragraph a says:  "The modified work must itself be a
software library."  Notice library is lower case, so it refers to the
meaning "a collection of software functions and/or data prepared so as
to be conveniently linked with application programs (which use some of
those functions and data) to form executables".

Paragraph b says:  "You must cause the files modified to carry prominent
notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
How will you do that, with an icon, which does not support comments?

There are more problems, but the upshot is, it does not make any sense.
Take it or leave it, it is quite obvious to me that there is nothing to
discuss here, the license does not make sense for icons.  It was
designed for use with software libraries.  Period.

> > > The "Library", below, refers to any such software
> > > library or work which has been distributed under these terms. A "work
> > > based on the Library" means either the Library or any derivative work
> > > under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Library or a
> > > portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated
> > > straightforwardly into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is
> > > included without limitation in the term "modification".)
> >
> > Again, inapplicable
>
> again 'work'
>
> > > "Source code" for a work means the preferred form
> > > of the work for making modifications to it. For a library, complete
> > > source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus
> > > any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> > > control compilation and installation of the library.
> >
> > Art has not software/binary distinction.
>
> Images can be compiled into code. In fact, that is wat is going to be done
> with SVG icons, according to the plans. On 2002-03-26 Chris Howells wrote
> to the list:

This is *not* compiling images into code - it is converting from one
image format to another.  The reason it is not compiled into code is b/c
the resulting icon is no more a "binary executable" than it would be had
you created it in that format in the first place.

> ""Also, I think it was mentioned on kde-core-devel that we would "compile"
> the svg icons into various sizes on comilation. These would be used by
> default, and the svg renderred would only be used at run time if unusualy
> sizes were chosen. Does this sound feasible?""
>
> I also remember Mosfed including compiled images in window themes to make
> them faster.

Not "compiled" in the GPL/LGPL sense, merely converted formats and
cached.

> > In short, art is different from code - there is no source/binary
> > distinction, and there is no "linking".
> >
> > Art needs a special license, I spoke to torsten about this before, but I
> > did not know about his solution, which i agree is not a good one.
>
> I fully agree a special art license would be better. I do not see one... It
> is not that I like the LGPL so much, but, it is existing.
>
> > > I read the other licenses, and see problems with them. The GPL can not
> > > be used, it forces applications using the artwork to use the GPL too:
> > > not suitable for a desktop that wants to be the standard.
> >
> > i don't see how, since the artwork does not "link" w/ anything and the
> > gpl is centered on this linking concept.  beyond that, though, the gpl
> > also is based on software which has the unique character of having
> > source and binary versions and also of linking, which art lacks.
> >
> > > The artistic license seems to have a hole in it.
> > >
> > > from the artistic license (3.1)
> > > "place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them
> > > Freely Available,"
> > >
> > > For people who want to ensure the work stays free (as in speech, the
> > > gnu thing), the artistic license is not good enough.
> >
> > but doesn't that only apply to the modifications, rather than the
> > modified work as a whole?
>
> yes...
>
> > > Once the artwork is Public Domain, you lost your copyright. You have no
> > > control left at all. Someone else can make it  Public Domain... Then it
> > > can end up in a commercial or proprietary package. The clarified
> > > Artistic license uses the same words. It seems to me the Artistic
> > > license does not bring what many want.
> >
> > i think you misread it - i think it applies only to the mods, the
> > original work's license is not accepted, the provision specifies how you
> > must license your mods only
>
> OK
>
> > but the license is also designed for software
> >
> > i think what's much closer to art is documentation - in fact, both
> > documentation - writings - and artwork wer what copyright originally
> > covered and they have much in common.  so i suggest going to gnu.org and
> > looking at their publication licenses and seeing if any of that makes
> > sense for what you have in mind for kde artwork and the nature of art
>
> I will follow that suggestion. Still, with compiled SVG icons, may be we
> have to get back to the LGPL...

I don't agree :-(.  What is so magic about the LGPL, that you want to
force its use, when it makes no sense?  It is precisely for that reason
that the FSF came up with the 2-3 Free Documentation licenses you will
find on its website.

[ . . . ]

Ciao,

Dre

-------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
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]