Re: Applying the GPL to Artwork

[Yevgen Muntyan <muntyan tamu edu>]

Thomas Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 01:24 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
>   
> > Hey,
> >
> > I have a problem with the following:
> >
> > Thomas Wood wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >     
> > > Run Time Substitution
> > > ---------------------
> > >
> > > If the icon is not required to allow the application to function (i.e.
> > > can be substituted at run time and is not distributed with the
> > > application) then the license does not apply. For example, this means
> > > that users would not be violating the GPL if a proprietary application
> > > uses a GPL icon theme.
> > >
> > > However, if a non-GPL application references an icon name from
> > > gnome-icon-theme, this should be considered as linking (as described
> > > above).
> > >       
> > The first and the second paragraphs are not mutually
> > exclusive. I have this LGPL-ed application which has code
> > like this:
> >
> > create_named_icon (icon_theme, widget, size, pixel_size, GTK_STOCK_HOME,
> >                                       "user-home", "gnome-fs-home", 
> > "folder_home", NULL);
> >
> > It will work without gnome icon theme, yet it references
> > "gnome-fs-home" name. Am I violating GPL here?
> >     
>
>
> I think Jakub tried to clear this up. Basically, I was trying to say if
> your non-GPL application references an icon that is clearly from a GPL
> theme without providing the icon itself, then this could be considered a
> violation. I could argue that using any gnome-* icon name indicates a
> reliance on the GNOME icon theme, which is GPL (almost all themes use
> this as a fallback).
>   

Now it becomes a little ugly, so could someone involved
into creating and maintaining gnome icon theme confirm
that LGPL-ed code must not use "gnome-fs-home" name?
I will happily fix my code in that case. Oh, and don't forget
to tell Gtk folks to fix this license violation, by the way.

Yevgen