Re: Theme licensing

[Loïc Minier <lool dooz org>]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2007, Michael Dominic K. wrote:
> 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.

 While it's correct that the Creative Commons target multimedia files
 specifically while the GPL/LGPL are more aimed at source code of
 programs, the freedoms given by Creative Commons licenses are weaker
 than those guaranteed by GPL/LGPL.

 However, there are plenty of precedents of packages shipped under
 GPL/LGPL, even if only made of artwork, and this is why I'm suggesting
 this particular unproblematic license.  Some I can easily cite:
 - gnome-backgrounds (GPL)
 - gnome-themes (LGPL)
 - gnome-icon-theme (LGPL)

> 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.

 What do you mean by "attributing" here?

 In all cases, MIT is not enough to attribute you, nor is GPL/LGPL which
 you use in the other modules, as I don't see what attributions
 requirements these license carry.  Do you have some different
 requirements for artwork than for the other modules?  If yes, could you
 list them?  Perhaps this will make the proposal of a DFSG compatible
 license.

   Thanks!
-- 
Loïc Minier