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

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Re: [kde-artists] Crystal Clear release!
From:       Rainer Endres <endres () physos ! org>
Date:       2005-06-23 14:49:04
Message-ID: 200506231649.05124.endres () physos ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


Hi

> > 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.

Ok, so the PNG, icons are the source? Fine. I totaly missed that possibility, 
since quite some icon seems to be derived from the Crystal SVG theme. Well, 
only Everaldo can anwser that. 

I have no problem with those icons being licensed as whatever. But ATM there 
is no license at all with the icons. I just wanted to understand what LGPL 
(which Everaldo stated in this list) means, with (for me) icons derived from 
Crystal SVG. And to my understanding this means publishing the sources. If 
Everaldo states these icons were created from scratch and the PNGs are the 
sources, I suppose thats fine with me. 

Everaldo, if you are reading this, love the new set. ;)

> 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.

Everaldo stated the LGPL on this list. I do not know if you are subscribed 
(since you are posting from different adresses which are not subscribed ;) 
but Everaldo said they are LGPL, which made people asking for the source. 

> 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.

How does liability correlate with the topic? 

> KDE community would not gain anything, and people could use my work without
> contributing back anything.

Why would the KDE community not gain anything if you release your work in the 
public domain? (Ah, me assuming there _are_ sources again) And people can use 
your work without contributing back with the LGPL, too. 

>
> 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.
>

Jep, didn't think of that, sorry. So the final pixel format is the source. 
Fine. 

>
> 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 am no lawyer, I tried to clearify the situation for me and for others. If 
the PNGs are considered the source, fine, we have the source. I stated my 
interpretation of things, you have a different one which makes sense, too. 

> 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 had no intention to force him, I just tried to clearify the situation. As 
everytime I try to understand the GPL, I am more confused than before. 

	Rainer


P.S. If you intend to continue to use multiple adresses can you please 
subscribe with those, too and disable mail delivery for them? Saves me 
additional unneeded work, thanks. 
______________________________________________________________________________
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]