Re: Theme licensing
- From: Loïc Minier <lool dooz org>
- To: hildon-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Theme licensing
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:36:38 +0200
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
][Date Next] [Thread Prev