[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 21:24:19
Message-ID: 39621.127.0.0.1.1119561859.squirrel () 127 ! 0 ! 0 ! 1
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, June 23, 2005 12:42 pm, Luciano Montanaro said:
> 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.

Not really. With a SVG, you can delete or resize elements. Not so with a
pixel-based image unless you redraw the items under it.

> 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 would be, along with any documentation on how to make the changes
in GIMP if you wrote it up.
This is similar to compiling an application and embedding the binary to
include an id of some kind (for tracking, etc).

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

It is still a necessity to compiling 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.

It is in every way the source of the image, unless it is less convenient
for editing. A good rule for determining this: if you are not willing to
delete the data yourself, it probably qualifies as 'source'.

> You may consider it a previous "release" maybe. But GPL has no concept
of release, only sources.

You still need to provide sources for older releases that are still in the
current version. It's not enough to include a patch between versions 1.0
and 2.0 when distributing version 2.0...

> 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.

Not unless you release any source material you have with it.

> The author, or anybody else, cannot require stuff you have not been
provided yourself.

They certainly can. It would be perfectly legal for an author to license a
program under the LGPL, only provide binaries for download, and charge
$100 for the source. Under the terms of the LGPL, you would be unable to
redistribute the binary download without the source-- thus, to
redistribute at all, you would be required to buy the source for $100 (or
obtain it from someone who already has)

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

Well, there is no way to redistribute the files... but you could still
obtain them from the author and use them.

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

Hopefully something that permits redistribution.

>> > 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.

Which they cannot be if there is another preferred form of editing.

> 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.

You cannot legally downloading a binary release of some open source
program and redistribute it without the sources. Claiming "the binaries
are the source!" isn't going to get very far with people who know what
they're talking about.

>> > 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.

Your opinion isn't law ;)

> The original photo can be considered an old "version" of the new,
elaborated image.

But the old "version" would still be source material for the new "version".

> The user can modify the image, and release again, as a "forked" version
of the image.

Only when including the source material, including the old "version" and,
if modified from the new "version", the new as well.

>> > 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? :)

Personally, my only concern would be that the icons be Free, including SVG
sources where applicable. The license itself could be LGPL, BSD, or
whatever.
(not that my opinion matters much here)

>> > 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.

True, but maybe Everaldo would consider it a problem that KDE doesn't use
the new icons. It could be solved either by releasing the source (best
IMO) or granting another license that permits distribution without sources
(which makes the icons a non-Free component in KDE).




______________________________________________________________________________
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]