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

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Re: [kde-artists] Crystal Clear release!
From:       Luciano Montanaro <mikelima () cirulla ! net>
Date:       2005-06-23 13:25:53
Message-ID: 200506231525.53781.mikelima () cirulla ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

El Jueves 23 Junio 2005 14:22, Rainer Endres escribió:
> Hi
>
> On Thursday 23 June 2005 10:37, Luciano Montanaro wrote:
> > El Miércoles 22 Junio 2005 23:01, Jonathan Riddell escribió:
> > Are we again arguing about this?
> >
> > The author can decide what constitutes a source file.
> > Saying an icon is LGPL IMHO means, roughly:
> > - You cannot embed the icons directly in your program, unless it is
> > LGPL too,
> > - You cannot change them and distribute them, unless you licence them
> > the same way,
> > - You have to state somewhere the status of the used icons.
>
> From http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html:
>
> ""Source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
> modifications to it."
>
> I doubt anybody is seeing editing the PNG as the prefered way with SVG
> based icons.

But a PNG is the preferred form for PNG based icons. 
I have since downloaded the icons, and there is no SVG file in there.
So for all we know, Everaldo can have drawn icons on a sheet of paper and 
digitized them. Or not. Maybe icons have been drawn in a vector program, 
then touched up with a pixel-based program. I doubt Everald has script to 
automate all the stages of his work, or to regenerate all the icons from a 
vector source. It does not actually matter.

Actually, this is not even the point. The point is that the author can chose 
to license his work as he seems fit, and he is not actually bound to any 
license. It's the receivers of the work that are bound to it.

So, if Everaldo started from an LGPL SVG file as the base of his work, he 
would have to oblige to the license and provide source files in the 
preferred form. Otherwise, he chooses what is to be considered a source 
file. The author of an original work is offering a gift, and I don't think 
the LGPL could force him to offer more than he intended. It would not be 
the successful license it is if it did.

If there were such a clause, if I were to release icons for free - not that 
I have the talent - I would just put them in the public domain, there would 
be too much risk of liability otherwise. 
KDE community would not gain anything, and people could use my work without 
contributing back anything.

>
> I respect Everaldo trying to protect his work, but then an appropriate
> closed licence needs to be coosen, which would be sad and I hope is not
> the intention. When you declare something GPL or LGPL, the source has to
> be provided, something most KDE icon artists did not do with the SVG
> based icons to different degree.
>
> > So, there is no need for Everaldo to release anything he does not care
> > to share, and there is no problem at all with the licensing.
>
> When he choose LGPL he had to stick to the license. And compiled PNGs is
> not "...the preferred form of the work for making modifications to..."
> vector based graphics as you elaborate below.
>

See above. Since the icons are distributed in a pixel format, it's 
reasonable to expect that they have to be kept in the same format after 
editing. Everaldo does not have to release anything he does not want to.
 
> > From the KDE project point of view, things are a bit different, in that
> > templates and vector files are quite valuable if others have to help
> > with new icons - or mantain the icon set if the original author finds
> > new interests.
>
> See, thats exactly why the LGPL requires to release the "source code".
>
> > But this is not a licensing issue at all.
>
> Yes it is. A lot. This is exactly what OSS is about. OpenSource not "Free
> as in Beer download".

I am not advocating a "Free beer" mentality. I am just arguing that, given 
some icon files distributed as PNG, the PNGs are to be considered as 
sources. They are still modifiable wit a number of graphics programs. And 
any change to the files are to be releases with the same license.

If these conditions are - or are not - suitable for KDE goals, that's 
completely another matter.

And I think discussion would go much farther if it started with:
"Are there vector version of the icons, please? They would really be 
useful!" than to invoke - preentively - a questionable legal obligation on 
the author.

I think having the vectorial files - if they exist - is an important goal 
for KDE, so requiring contributors to also offer those is the reasonable 
thing to do. But it's entirely up to the author to decide to release them, 
and he must be convinced to offer them, not forced to do it.

>
> > I don't know if Everaldo wants the icons to be included as a theme in
> > the KDE distribution, or if he wants simply to share his work as is.
> > Only in the former case, the KDE project may put out conditions for the
> > inclusion of the icon set in the distribution.
>
> The condition is to honour licenses of work this icon theme is derivated
> from and the Licence it is declared to be released under.
>
> > Please let's not confuse different issues.
>
> These are no different issues.
>
> 	Rainer
>

-- 
Luciano Montanaro       //
                    \\ //
                     \x/Un euro, un voto!
______________________________________________________________________________
kde-artists@mail.kde.org |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists

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