[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 () gmail ! com>
Date:       2005-06-23 16:46:56
Message-ID: 200506231846.56743.mikelima () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

El Jueves 23 Junio 2005 16:49, Rainer Endres escribió:

> 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.

The author could claim something along these lines: 
the png files I am here distributing are to be considered source files, as 
for further modifications.

At least the icons at the smaller sizes are probably hand-edited, so the 
difference between source file and "compiled" file is none.

It does not really matter how the png files have been obtained; once you see 
them as source files, the licence applies to them and any modification of 
them.

The files are perfectly editable, by the way, and they are useful for 
further modification. You may still layer element on top of them, scale 
them and so on. If that is the preferred form, well, that's the author 
call.

As for the Crystal SVG files, I think those are from Everaldo too, isn't it?
In this case, the LGPL does not apply to him. He may release the same under 
any other licence he wishes. Unless he started from a svg file modified by 
someone else. 

>
> 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. ;)

I think the licensing issue could be better addressed with a different 
license.

I think the Creative Commons "Share and share alike" with attribution 
license could be a good fit (The page renders to italian for me, I hope the 
page autodetects the language):

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

which for all practical purposes would leave us in exactly the same 
situation as we are now. So why would we make such a fuss over the license 
if we would gain nothing out of that?
If we really care for the svg files (I cannot convince myself to call them 
source files, because I don't know what Everaldo used to produce the 
icons), we should simply ask them, instead of demanding that an unappliable 
clause be respected. And point out the licensing problem, if there really 
is one. Let's hope Richard Stallman can spread some light at last on the 
question.

>
> > 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.
>

Ok, but then do we want "sources" or do we want SVG files? I really care for 
the latter myself. Would it be ok if the "sources" would not produce 
exactly the icons as rendered to PNG files? Are they sources in this case, 
or are just useful pieces we'd like to have? 

> > 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?
>

Maybe I used the wrong word. I'll try to explain with an example.
I make a beautiful snapshot with my digital camera, and I make a background 
of it, cropping and scaling it with krita.
I publish it under the (L)GPL on kde-look. If your reading of the LGPL is 
correct, I should provide the original photograph to everyone requesting 
it, which may be annoying.

I was trying being nice, and now I have an unwanted burden.

Under my view of the licensing agreement, the user may use the background as 
he prefers, he may modify the image with whatever he likes, and publish it 
again, with the same license and with my copyiright intact.

> > 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.
>

Yes, I was referring to releasing the exactly same stuff with no licensing.
Using without contributing is fine with the LGPL, but under your vision the 
author himself would have obligations, if he agrees to the GPL. Which he 
does not have to, anyway.

> > 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.
>

Ok, if you wanted to start a discussion, you clearly achieved your goal :)
I have seen this kind of discussion at least another time, and I'd like too 
to have a consensus on KDE policy regarding data files in general.
There is not only graphics to care about: sound files, configuration data 
and so on needs the same attention.

> > 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.
>

I'm glad to hear that. And I hope the licensing issues can be resolved once 
and for all, at last.

Ciao,
Luciano

> 	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.

I hope I have finally fixed kmail. Sorry about that. I mis-guessed the 
registration address.
______________________________________________________________________________
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]