[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-artists
Subject: Re: K-ARTIST:(no subject) -> kde-artwork license man
From: "Torsten Rahn" <tackat () suse ! de>
Date: 2002-08-14 16:51:53
[Download RAW message or body]
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
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-2">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi Ante :-) ,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR>>> You might
want to talk to ante about the license ... he's the kde-artwork<BR>>>
license man ;-)<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT>You are kidding! </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> I did strongly oppose the one sentence license, that even is <BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>
</FONT></FONT>missing a disclaimer. Andreas Pour did agree that it was not an
improvement. <BR>> Others, of whom I recall Luci, agreed. You started to
change things, so you <BR>> seemed to agree too. Yet, last time I checked, it
was still there. My <BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> conclusion is that there is no zest to make a better one. OK, I
decided to <BR>> drop the matter. Be Happy with it! Since having no influence
at all is rather <BR>> frustrating, I might leave this list as well.
<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If you have some further suggestions concerning the
license of Crystal please speak up :-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT>While it may be said that this policy
is not really for the artwork, it does <BR>> create consistency, clarity for
the distributors. The sense of the policy is <BR>> to prevent a lot of
licenses. It would be good to comply. <BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>That's certainly true :-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT>PS, that last time I checked the LGPL
in kdelibs was an old version. <BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks for pointing this out.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Tackat</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
_______________________________________________
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]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic