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

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Re: [kde-artists] Crystal Clear release!
From:       David Vignoni <david.vignoni () gmail ! com>
Date:       2005-06-23 14:58:30
Message-ID: d8901247050623075850c67837 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

I think Luciano Montanaro and Hermann Thomas are right. Everaldo can
choose to or not release the "sources".
People are asking for SVG sources but icons aren't binary programs,
you don't have to compile a source to get the final icon and the is no
rule saying that a PNG image needs to have an SVG source. Let's think
about gnome icons. Most of them were made by Jimmac using the gimp, an
image editor, there are no vector. What's a source for a gimp made
icon? the XCF file?

I think KDE can choose to use LGPL distribuited icons without an
editable vector file like clear-crystal or to just say: no thanks.
We'll go with another icontheme with vector sources, or pick tthe best
icons from different lgpl icon themes.

You can't ask to Everaldo to make SVGs to be able to release his icons
under LGPL. Why he has to limitate his skills by using a not yet
perfect format? avoiding to use features from he's prefered
illustration tool?

I think a license different from LGPL needs to be created.

ciao,

David


2005/6/23, Luciano Montanaro <mikelima@gmail.com>:
> 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
> 


-- 
David Vignoni
______________________________________________________________________________
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]