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

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Re: K-ARTIST:Koffice icons: Bold, Italic, Underline
From:       ante <vitanova () softhome ! net>
Date:       2002-04-25 14:59:50
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 24 April 2002 03:54, Torsten Rahn wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 24 April 2002 01:27 schrieb Pablo Liska:

> Is your artwork original and do you agree with putting it under the
> artistic license? (That's basically equivalent to "free for
> commercial/noncommercial distribution/modification/usage" )

The Artistic License is the new license for the artwork? Why?

There are strong arguments against this license. 

1. The license is vague. The group that made the license admits so, they published \
The Clarified Artistic License later.

2. Andreas Pour made a case against the LGPL. If you read his e-mail carefully, you \
see he makes the same case against the (Clarified) Artistic License. From his first \
e-mail, forwarded to this list on 2002-04-02, about the Artistic Licenses: "but the \
license is also designed for software"

From the Clarified Artistic License:
" provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file"

Impossible to do that with images, this is exactly the problem Andreas Pour pointed \
out the LGPL has. The Artistic License has the same problem as the LGPL. Changing \
from LGPL to Artistic makes no sense.

3. The Artistic License is weaker than the LGPL. It does not garantee the work stays \
free. It is not a "copyleft" license. 

Changing license is a problem in itself, especially if it is to a weaker license. \
Over many years, many artists contributed to KDE, some a lot, others a few things. \
These artists are the copyright holders. They consented to their work being published \
under the LGPL. To change license, each of them has to be contacted. They have to \
consent. If you change license without their consent, it is a copyright infringement. \
We're very carefull not to infringe the copyrights of others, we do not care about \
the the copyrights of the artists that contributed? We do not value their work?

If the license is changed without consent of the copyright holders, part of the \
artwork is still under the LGPL, part is under the new license. Not a good situation. \


Actually, I'm pissed off by this. We were having a discussion on this list. In this \
discussion it became clear that the Artistic License does not work out of the box. It \
also became clear you can not change the license just like that. And, it was clear I \
am investigating these things.   Then, Torsten, you come along and without any \
discussion you change the license on your own, and pick the wrong one again. What is \
the sense of discussing things on this list, if you do things anyway your way?  \
Really Torsten, do you want people to contribute, or do you rather do it all alone? \
Let me know, there are other things I can spend my time on. 

In my next e-mail I will present a solution that is, imho, the correct way out. 

Cordialemente,

Ante


> 
> Greetings,
> Tackat

_______________________________________________
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]