El Jueves 23 Junio 2005 23:24, Luke-Jr escribió:

... a lot of points, which I can see, to an extent.

> > Not in my opinion.
>
> Your opinion isn't law ;)

Of course. It's my interpretation of the agreement, which may be (and 
probably is) wrong. So an agreement better suited to the media would be 
welcome, in my view.

But regardless, can we make a list of things that need to be addressed?
I'll try to summarize my point of view one last time here, then I'll sut up 
on this:

- The LGPL is not really a suitable license, neither for the author nor for 
KDE.

- KDE needs SVG files, not generically "sources". We don't really need 
graphics file in propietary format, but something that can be processed by 
free tools, if possible.

- KDE can and should ask for new icons to be provided in SVG format, 
exclusively or in addition to pixmap formats. So we have a lever to 
encourage the production of SVG files in any case, as long as authors are 
willing to collaborate with KDE.

I hope I did not just bring up the noise level in the list, but that a 
clarification on licensing can finally be reached.

Thanks to everybody, 
Luciano
______________________________________________________________________________
kde-artists@mail.kde.org |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists