Hi Ante :-) ,

>> You might want to talk to ante about the license ... he's the kde-artwork
>> license man ;-)
> You are kidding!

While I wasn't so much serious about the word "license man" (as you might see from the ";-)" I was very serious in regard to the fact that you know much more than me about "licensing/copyrighting/whatever .." the artwork. I think referring to you when the artist asks which license he should pick is probably a much better idea than asking me as I didn't study this stuff.

> I did strongly oppose the one sentence license, that even is
> missing a disclaimer. Andreas Pour did agree that it was not an improvement.
> Others, of whom I recall Luci, agreed. You started to change things, so you
> seemed to agree too. Yet, last time I checked, it was still there. My

For KDE 3.1 Everaldo and me are working on a vectorized version of the Crystal Icon theme which will be licensed under the LGPL (as of your request/influence). We will have a first version ready by KDE 3.1 Beta 1

> conclusion is that there is no zest to make a better one. OK, I decided to
> drop the matter. Be Happy with it! Since having no influence at all is rather
> frustrating, I might leave this list as well.

Well the influence was put into the new icontheme which will be a clean new start: from the perspective of law as well as the perspective of design.

If you have some further suggestions concerning the license of Crystal please speak up :-)

> While it may be said that this policy is not really for the artwork, it does
> create consistency, clarity for the distributors. The sense of the policy is
> to prevent a lot of licenses. It would be good to comply.

That's certainly true :-)

> PS, that last time I checked the LGPL in kdelibs was an old version.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Tackat