'Re: K-ARTIST:Copyright'

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

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Re: K-ARTIST:Copyright
From:       ante <vitanova () softhome ! net>
Date:       2002-04-30 10:51:05
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 29 April 2002 12:08, Torsten Rahn wrote:

> > > Well right now we would change from "free for commercial/noncommercial
> > > distribution/modification/usage" to Artistic. hm. I guess I will stay
> > > with that
> >
> > No, "we" still have the LGPL. You never asked every copyright holder
> > consent.
>
> Again and again: how can you make such claims? 

You missed the most important part of the claim, it's goal. At a certain 
point Andreas Pour and I agreed the license you wrote was not an improvement. 
Luci wrote: "i agree it is not good enough to use just a sentence as a 
license but (...)" There seemed to be general consensus about this. How to 
save the situation? On 2002-04-02 I wrote: 

********************
I want to propose a status quo. 

1. According to Torsten the license used to be the LGPL. I have no grounds to 
contest this.

2. Possibly there is a problem with the LGPL - artwork combination. 

3. Torsten proposed " "free for commercial and non-commercial 
usage/distribution/modification". We seem to agree that this is not an 
improvement. Happily, Torsten only used the expression in private e-mails. 
That does not count. The only conclusion is that for the moment the license 
still is the LGPL. 

4. We have to find a better license. Let's take the time for that. For the 
moment let's keep the LGPL. 

5. For compatability reasons, the new license should be LGPL like: allow the 
most possible use of the artwork, while keeping it free (as in speech). From 
now on we can ask artists that summit work: Do you agree the work is 
published under the LGPL and do you agree the license will be changed to a 
compatible license, a change that will respect that the artwork can be used 
as freely as possible while keeping it free (as in speech). 

This way, we know where we are, and can take the time to get somewhere 
better. 

Are we I trouble in the meantime? I do not think so. If someone can find a 
court to declare the LGPL void if used for artwork, well, the work is 
unlicensensed. The authors have the copyright, the others have nothing. 
Something like this will happen: The Kompany will send an e-mail, hee: we 
hear there are troubles with the license, we're just about the ship an app 
with some KDE icons in it, how to go on? We can just say: We grant you the 
right to do it, just act as if the LGPL is alive, and we're OK. 

Up till now, nobody contested the GPL or the LGPL - they are based on solid 
copyright laws -, so we're not in a hurry. 

**************************

So, in order to avoid being in a very unfavorable position - stuck with a 
very weak license - I wrote the license still is the LGPL. OK, something had 
to be done, but we were save for the moment. You seemed to agree, you never 
answered. Then you blew the whole situation up again. You started with the 
Artistic license, at a moment it was clear it is not a good license (see fi 
antialias on 2002-04-01). Confronted with the argument AP had against it you 
changed back to your one sentence license. 

And what do you do now? I write your one sentence license does not have a 
disclaimer. I also write the change was not valid, giving you the possibility 
to retreat, get back to the LGPL as soon as possible, for the moment. No, you 
rather defend the change, so, if I have to belief you, the KDE artwork is 
under a very weak license for months now, without a disclaimer, and KDE 3 
artwork shipped under a very weak license without a disclaimer. 

I would have thought: Oops, that was close and excepted the way out. I would 
have written to the list: Upon scrutinizing the situation, I found a few 
icons I'm not sure of who made them, so, very unfortunate, to change was not 
valid, sorry bout that, the license still is the LGPL, just for the moment, 
let's change that soon. 

So, you rather have the situation that the artwork is under a very weak 
license for months now, without a disclaimer? I have to admit, you are much 
more adventurous than I am. 

Now, take a look at the proposal for a status quo again. It's still valid...

I will reply to the rest of your e-mail soon. 

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] 