From kde-core-devel Sun Oct 15 23:59:32 2006 From: Filipus Klutiero Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:59:32 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: [Fwd: Licensing Policy for non-code?] Message-Id: <4532CB64.30005 () vif ! ca> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=116098003228308 I discovered that kde-policies was really a dead list after sending the included message, so I'm forwarding it here. -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Licensing Policy for non-code? Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:19:19 -0400 De: Filipus Klutiero Pour: kde-policies@lists.kde.org Hi, more than a week ago I went to #kde-devel asking if there was a licensing policy for content other than source code, such as artwork, since http://developer.kde.org/policies/licensepolicy.html only covers source code. After some time without getting a clear answer, Maksim Orlovich suggested me to ask on mailing lists. Ideally, someone would point me to a previous discussion on this topic that I missed. Otherwise, let me elaborate a bit. The reason I am asking is that I use a GNU/Linux distribution whose policy disallows inclusion of non-modifiable material. This distribution includes an apparently non-modifiable Firefox icon (kdebase/pics/crystalsvg/). As crystalsvg contains other similar icons, it's clear that a full investigation of the contents should be done if the distributor wants to be sure that there are no other policy violations. I was asked if I volunteered to do such an investigation. I do not know if I will, but if KDE does nothing to help distributors with similar policies, it's probably better to abandon the idea of cleaning the packages and only fixing policy violations as they are reported, unless the distributor wants to review each new file. Before sending this mail, I contacted Stephan Binner, who committed the Firefox logo to kdebase a little more than 2 years ago, to make sure that it was indeed an original non-modifiable Firefox logo and not an imitation under a free license. It turns out that he doesn't even remember where the icon comes from. So, if there's no licensing policy for content other than source code, distributors would still appreciate if there was a requirement to document which files are not modifiable (and perhaps other criteria), under which license these files are distributed, and where/who they are from.