Applying the GPL to Artwork

[Thomas Wood <thos gnome org>]

For quite some time we've had artwork released under the GPL, but
unfortunately there are no clear guidelines on how the GPL applies to
artwork. I'd like to try and rectify this position.

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER! The following is my own personal
interpretation of how the GPL might be applied to artwork. There may be
areas where I am completely wrong!


GPL Definitions: Linking
------------------------

I would like to suggest that if an icon is required for the functioning
of an application (i.e. no run-time substitute icon would be possible),
then this constitutes "linking" to the artwork, in the terms of the GPL.

Therefore, if an application links to a GPL licensed artwork, or
distributes the artwork with the application:

1) That application must also be GPL

2) The GPL must be displayed in an appropriate place, along with the
copyright notice, including the name of the author, of that artwork.

3) The source code for the artwork and any modifications must be made
available.


GPL Definitions: Source Code
----------------------------

The definition of source code is usually interpreted as the working
format for the artwork (e.g. xcf or svg).

Sometimes the working format and the final format are the same (e.g.
svg), but where they are not, both should be made available.


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).


Websites
--------

Websites are more tricky than applications under GPL v2, because the
machine readable application is very rarely distributed.

I would like to suggest (as a minimum requirement) that if GPL artwork
is used on a website, then proper attribution of the author and a
statement of the license for the artwork is available in an appropriate
place in the website.



How do people (especially gnome-icon-theme authors) feel about this
interpretation? I'm sure I've only touched on one or two issues, so
please feel free to raise more than I may have missed.


Regards,

Thomas