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

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Re: [kde-artists] Crystal Clear release!
From:       Luke-Jr <luke-jr () utopios ! org>
Date:       2005-06-23 14:53:53
Message-ID: 200506231453.55239.luke-jr () utopios ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Author distributes under his own authority.
Anyone else needs a license to distribute from the author.
Author grants LGPL, but does not give anyone sources.
According to the LGPL, you have the right to redistribute the product so long 
as you include sources with it.
Since author did not give anyone sources, nobody can comply with the LGPL, 
thus:
	11. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
	 infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
	 conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
	 otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
	 excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so
	 as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any
	 other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute
	 the Library at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit
	 royalty-free redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies
	 directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both
	 it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the
	 Library.
Emphasis: "as a consequence you may not distribute the Library at all."

On Thursday 23 June 2005 14:29, Luciano Montanaro wrote:
> El Jueves 23 Junio 2005 16:08, Hermann Thomas escribió:
> > Rainer Endres schrieb:
> > >So, you say the GPL allows to distribute closed source (I am no giving
> > > away the source) binaries? Reading the text, I can not see where this
> > > is explicitly denied.
> > >
> > >So MS can license Office under the (L)GPL, as long as they do not give
> > > anybody the Source Code, nobody is allowed to redistribute the work?
> > >
> > >Trying to understand this.
> > >
> > >	Rainer
> >
> > Hi I haven?t been posting much in the past, but I read everything posted
> > here.
> > Well with Artwork the end result sometimes is the source file. Just
> > think of a Photo.
> > As far as I understand this. You can give out icons under the GPL or
> > LGPL without the source because it could be that there is none. Just
> > imagine Everaldo made all the Icons Pixel by Pixel in a Pixelprogramm!
> > Could be! Well It wasn?t in this case but you never now. Brings us to
> > the next Point. I see the GPL or LGPL to secure the original Author. If
> > someone now takes the Pixel based GPL Icons and changes it into
> > something else. Then the source must be committed. Al though it could be
> > that there is none because of Pixel by Pixel editing...ehhh weird!?!?!
> > Well anyway. The KDE policy should be that there shouldn?t be any Icons
> > without the SVG source file. If an Artist, like Everaldo, wants his
> > Icons to be included in KDE he must give out the source. If not then it
> > is a case for KDE-Look.
> > Like Ann-Marie said. In the long run all closed icons must go a have to
> > be replaced by icons with sources.
> > Greetings,
> > Hermann
>
> Yes, this is exactly the point I was making.
> Thank you for your clarification.
>
> I agree with your summary and your conclusion.
>
> Luciano
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>___ kde-artists@mail.kde.org | 
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists

-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
______________________________________________________________________________
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]