Re: Theme licensing

["Michael Dominic K." <mdk mdk am>]

On 7/26/07, Loïc Minier <lool dooz org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007, Tommi Komulainen wrote:
> > Do you happen to have a concrete set of licenses you'd prefer? It would
> > then be fairly easy for us to cross check them with our preferences.
>
>  The only requirement for Debian is to comply with the DFSG; we have a
>  page tracking a list of licenses which have been challenged already:
>     <http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses>
>  some licenses are still disputed and might be in a grey zone.
>
>  In general, we tend to recommend GPL, LGPL, BSD, or MIT which are very
>  clear in intent and are very easy to deal with.
>    One example is that people tend to pick GFDL for documentation where
>  GPL would be perfectly fine, bug GFDL has been problematic due to DRM
>  restrictions or invariant sections, and was finally accepted under
>  certain conditions (no invariant sections).
>
> > The intent of hildon-theme-layout is to not impose restrictions on
> > derived themes, so there shouldn't be a problem. And Plankton is our
> > brand free Tango style looks for Hildon.
>
>  Perhaps you can simply put it under MIT or BSD if you don't want to
>  impose any restriction?
>
>  Debian has tango-icon-theme in "non-free" because of the Creative
>  Commons license.
>
> --
> Loïc Minier
> _______________________________________________
> hildon-list mailing list
> hildon-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/hildon-list

The problem with GPL, LGPL etc. is that it doesn't make much sense for
the artistic content (icons etc.). Creative commons, on the other
hand, was specifically "invented" with this kind of content in mind.

I guess it's possible for us to re-license the layout, but on the
other hand, I really feel creative commons makes a lot of sense here.
This stuff is pretty open, but we'd still like people to attribute us
when basing on it. I'm very far from being an expert in licensing, but
I guess at least MIT is not enough here.

--
Michael.