Re: Theme licensing

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:
 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

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.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]