Re: Applying the GPL to Artwork

[Yevgen Muntyan <muntyan tamu edu>]

Thomas Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 10:32 +0200, Stephan Arts wrote:
>   
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Thomas Wood <thos gnome org> wrote:
> >     
> [...]
>   
> > >  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).
> > >
> > >  Does this make sense?
> > >       
> > Not at all, if the icon is bundled with the software, then yes.
> >
> > But there is no way any developer can figure out if the icon-theme in
> > question is GPL-ed or not. And calling the use of an icon-name (a
> > convention to make sure the same 'type' of icon is used across
> > applications) a violation of the GPL?!
> >
> > That's rediculous.
> >     
> 
>
> Well, I'm quite happy to scrap that idea if it's what people want.
> However, I believe the gnome-* convention is only specified in Nautilus
> source code, which is GPL. So either way, if you specify a gnome-* icon
> name in your non-GPL application and don't supply a non-GPL icon, it
> seems fairly obvious you have copied some GPL code to get it to work?
>   

Are you saying it is fairly obvious that I have copied
GPL-ed Nautilus code into my LGPL-ed code, violating
GPL and whatnot?

Yevgen