[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 17:42:07
Message-ID: 200506231942.08271.mikelima () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

El Jueves 23 Junio 2005 19:11, Luke-Jr escribió:
> On Thursday 23 June 2005 16:46, Luciano Montanaro wrote:
> > El Jueves 23 Junio 2005 16:49, Rainer Endres escribió:
> > The files are perfectly editable, by the way, and they are useful for
> > further modification.
>
> Binary programs are editable also (I've written a few small ones in a hex
> editor). Yes, it's harder, but it is also similarly harder to edit a PNG
> generated from a SVG than it is to edit the SVG itself.
>

That depends on your ability with svg-based and pixel based programs, but 
that may be.
But if I draw up an image with sodipodi, to have a guideline, render it to 
png, make pixel effect with gimp on that, and then release the image,
which version is the source of the image?

The svg image cannot be "compiled" to look like the final image.

It may be useful to have, if there ise a recipe to transform it to the final 
icon, but it is in no way the source of the image. You may consider it a 
previous "release" maybe. But GPL has no concept of release, only sources.

If I bundle a bunch of files under the LGPL, you still may modify them as 
you see fit, and release them again under the same condition. The author, 
or anybody else, cannot require stuff you have not been provided yourself.

Unless you accept the available files as the source, there is no way to 
redistribute or use the files.

From the practical point of view: we have been distributing pixmap based 
themes all this time with KDE. Which license are they under?

> > You may still layer element on top of them, scale them and so on.
>
> This could be equivalent to editing strings or resources in a binary
> program.
>
> > 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.
>
> No, but it does apply to everyone else. If everyone else does not have
> the means to comply with the LGPL, they cannot distribute the icons.
>
Unless the PNG files are to be considered the source files.
There may well be a clarification as to which files are to be considered 
sources. But if there is no clarification, I would assume, when I unpack a 
tarball, that anything in that is, in one way or another, a source file.
It is needed to build a working "program", or a library, with the required 
dependencies.


> > 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.
>
> No, you don't need to provide the original photo, but everybody else
> *does*. If you want everyone else to be able to redistribute the
> wallpaper without the source photo, don't use the LGPL.
>

Not in my opinion. The original photo can be considered an old "version" of 
the new, elaborated image. The user can modify the image, and release 
again, as a "forked" version of the image. Any subsequent user would have 
exactly the same rights as the first user, as to what can be done to the 
image.

> > I was trying being nice, and now I have an unwanted burden.
>
> No, you're just left as the only person who can distribute the wallpaper.
> You can then still grant another different license allowing others to do
> the same.
>

After all this discussion, I woud use the Creative Commons license. It's 
much clearer. Is that ok with you? :)

> > 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.
>
> That is not the LGPL. That would be similar to a binary program under an
> as-is license.

I hope you are wrong, otherwise it wouldn't be Everaldo that has a problem, 
it would be us, as KDE.

Luciano
______________________________________________________________________________
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]