Hello,
I only realised this today, but our guidelines speak about using tango as default iconset. We abide these rules very well, in the contribs the mayority if icons are indeed tango icons.
But they are not GPL, nor can they be distributed as such. We should address this, and possibly choose another default iconset, or else change our licencing policy.
«The Tango icons are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. The palette is public domain, it can be used and distributed freely. Developers, feel free to ship it along with your application. The icon naming utilities are licensed under the GPL» --- from http://tango-project.org/Tango_Desktop_Project
Bèr
Bèr Kessels wrote:
I only realised this today, but our guidelines speak about using tango as default iconset. We abide these rules very well, in the contribs the mayority if icons are indeed tango icons.
But they are not GPL, nor can they be distributed as such.
Why would you use GPL for _content_?
gnu.org does seem to dislike the Creative Commons licenses though, although I'm not sure what part of the "Attribution Share-alike" they disagree with .. probably the requirement of attribution? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
-Rowan
On 29 May 2006, at 6:30 PM, Bèr Kessels wrote:
We distribute our software as GPL. So if we want to distribute any icons with that, we MUST distribute them under GPL too.
if we treated images as source, we would be forced to distribute the psd files used to create them too, otherwise we are essentially distributing compiled images.
personally i don't think the gpl reaches to images, otherwise any image used by any gpl program would have to be gpl'd too. That means even your logo that you upload to your site becomes gpl.
-- Adrian Rossouw Drupal developer and Bryght Guy http://drupal.org | http://bryght.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Adrian Rossouw wrote:
if we treated images as source, we would be forced to distribute the psd files used to create them too, otherwise we are essentially distributing compiled images.
personally i don't think the gpl reaches to images, otherwise any image used by any gpl program would have to be gpl'd too. That means even your logo that you upload to your site becomes gpl.
Isn't psd a proprietary Adobe file format? I only use Free Software like Gimp to create my icons. ;)
Also, I think the attribution clause of the CC license for these icons is somewhat like the old "obnoxious BSD advertising clause", but less obnoxious. Still, I don't want to download a theme from drupal.org and be required to keep a attribution clause in my footer if I like an icon from the set.
Regardless, the real issue here is that files in the CVS archive need to be released under the GPL. Dries has already said as much several times. Having php files under the GPL, but stipulating that images,etc. are covered under a CC (which one?) will only create confusion.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
Op dinsdag 30 mei 2006 16:03, schreef grohk:
Regardless, the real issue here is that files in the CVS archive need to be released under the GPL. Dries has already said as much several times. Having php files under the GPL, but stipulating that images,etc. are covered under a CC (which one?) will only create confusion.
This is the whole point. Which is why I posted this to the infrastructure list too. We aere currently breaking laws with our contrib modules and probably even core (Or did these icons not come from tango?)
It does not matter how you *feel* about images under GPL etc, fact is, that we are distributing png files under GPL, which are not allowed to be there. At all. This needs to be changed. I would like to hear some more feedback on this (I missed some mails from infrastructure, sorry).
Bèr
It does not matter how you *feel* about images under GPL etc, fact is, that we are distributing png files under GPL, which are not allowed to be there. At
If the GPL license only applies to PHP code in CVS then other types of files included are not distributed under a GPL license.
Perhaps it could be clarified somewhere in the CVS documentation that other file types need some clarification about usage. But saying we can't use CC licensed material or any alternative sharing license is extremely limiting to development, and it doesn't make sense. The spirit of freely shared, freely distributed software is the same in all of the different licenses so there is no need to shoot ourselves in the foot.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Farsheed wrote:
If the GPL license only applies to PHP code in CVS then other types of files included are not distributed under a GPL license.
Perhaps it could be clarified somewhere in the CVS documentation that other file types need some clarification about usage. But saying we can't use CC licensed material or any alternative sharing license is extremely limiting to development, and it doesn't make sense. The spirit of freely shared, freely distributed software is the same in all of the different licenses so there is no need to shoot ourselves in the foot.
As per the CVS contributions FAQ [1]:
"Q: What license should I use? A: We currently require that all submissions carry the GNU/GPL license. This may, or may not change in the future. For more information on the GNU/GPL, point the browser of your choice to http://www.gnu.org/.
You don't have to include a LICENSE.txt in your theme or module's directory because there is global LICENSE.txt in the top-level directory of the contributions repository. Furthermore, a LICENSE.txt will automatically be added to each packaged theme or module (.tgz file) that is offered for download at http://www.drupal.org/."
Allowing CC (again, there are *many* of these, some of which by no means grant us freedom) or any other license for that matter will clutter up the repository. As it stands, the GNU GPL is the only license for files uploaded to Drupal's CVS, it is the simplest approach.
[1] http://cvs.drupal.org/viewcvs/drupal/contributions/FAQ.txt?view=markup
Op dinsdag 30 mei 2006 20:56, schreef grohk:
Allowing CC (again, there are *many* of these, some of which by no means grant us freedom) or any other license for that matter will clutter up the repository. As it stands, the GNU GPL is the only license for files uploaded to Drupal's CVS, it is the simplest approach.
[1] http://cvs.drupal.org/viewcvs/drupal/contributions/FAQ.txt?view=markup
So: Two options: (Or I missed one?) 1) we mail all contributors with tango icons that they should use another set of icons ASAP (yet to be decided which one). we change the coding style guidelines accordingly. 2) we change our licence policy.
I am in favour of the first. ITs the easiest, and it keeps matters simple.
Bèr
On 5/30/06, Bèr Kessels ber@webschuur.com wrote:
So: Two options: (Or I missed one?)
- we mail all contributors with tango icons that they should use another
set of icons ASAP (yet to be decided which one). we change the coding style guidelines accordingly. 2) we change our licence policy.
I am in favour of the first. ITs the easiest, and it keeps matters simple.
I am in favor of the 2nd. I don't see the problem behind the CC license. It's non-code. Sure, I'm all for GPL when it comes to source code, but when it's an image or document or whatever, what does it matter?
Trae
Bèr
-- PGP ber@webschuur.com http://www.webschuur.com/sites/webschuur.com/files/ber_webschuur.asc PGP berkessels@gmx.net http://www.webschuur.com/sites/webschuur.com/files/ber_gmx.asc
Drupal upgrade repareert kritiek beveiligingslek: http://help.sympal.nl/drupal_upgrade_repareert_kritiek_beveiligingslek
themes mailing list themes@drupal.org http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/themes
Op dinsdag 30 mei 2006 21:47, schreef Trae McCombs:
On 5/30/06, Bèr Kessels ber@webschuur.com wrote:
So: Two options: (Or I missed one?)
- we mail all contributors with tango icons that they should use another
set of icons ASAP (yet to be decided which one). we change the coding style guidelines accordingly. 2) we change our licence policy.
I am in favour of the first. ITs the easiest, and it keeps matters simple.
I am in favor of the 2nd. I don't see the problem behind the CC license. It's non-code. Sure, I'm all for GPL when it comes to source code, but when it's an image or document or whatever, what does it matter?
Trae
I think we should let Dries decide. Or else someone in charge of the CVS repos.
On 30 May 2006, at 21:55, Bèr Kessels wrote:
Two options: (Or I missed one?)
- we mail all contributors with tango icons that they should use
another set of icons ASAP (yet to be decided which one). we change the coding style guidelines accordingly. 2) we change our licence policy.
I am in favour of the first. ITs the easiest, and it keeps matters simple.
I am in favor of the 2nd. I don't see the problem behind the CC license. It's non-code. Sure, I'm all for GPL when it comes to source code, but when it's an image or document or whatever, what does it matter?
I think we should let Dries decide. Or else someone in charge of the CVS repos.
We stick with (1) for now. We're not lawyers, so let's try not to make up our own rules, or mix licenses without knowing what we are doing.
-- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
I just read up on the infrastructure list. It seems its decided we have to remove all tango icons from contrib.
Bèr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Trae McCombs wrote:
I am in favor of the 2nd. I don't see the problem behind the CC license. It's non-code. Sure, I'm all for GPL when it comes to source code, but when it's an image or document or whatever, what does it matter?
It does matter, since there are a number of CC licenses to chose from and changing the policy to allow for these would be non-trivial. The license in question has an attribution clause which can be interpreted in several ways I guess, but in my mind would force each site that uses the icons to attribute the original author. The GPL makes no such demand.
I am in favor of option 1.
It's such a shame to see such a great base of icons shunned due to licensing issues. I personally know the people who work on these icons, and the intent is for them to be used by the community. :/
On 5/30/06, grohk grohk@code0range.net wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Trae McCombs wrote:
I am in favor of the 2nd. I don't see the problem behind the CC
license.
It's non-code. Sure, I'm all for GPL when it comes to source code, but when it's an image or document or whatever, what does it matter?
It does matter, since there are a number of CC licenses to chose from and changing the policy to allow for these would be non-trivial. The license in question has an attribution clause which can be interpreted in several ways I guess, but in my mind would force each site that uses the icons to attribute the original author. The GPL makes no such demand.
I am in favor of option 1.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEfKZlO+lwfsap+f0RAoL5AJ9Joo99tmzQjqQ8A1FmIndFuWEOxgCfeXRZ PhfHkMc+1AEx8eZvdqiRkbo= =pHLs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ themes mailing list themes@drupal.org http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/themes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Trae McCombs wrote:
It's such a shame to see such a great base of icons shunned due to licensing issues. I personally know the people who work on these icons, and the intent is for them to be used by the community. :/
Actually, I just thought of an option #3. Trea, you are on the about page of the Tango project, so maybe you could ask them if there might be a way to dual-license these icons?
As many of you know there was a similar licensing issue with the Mollio template [1], which was resolved by Mollio releasing their fine template under the GPL in parallel with the original CC Attribution.
Think that would work?
Well, They are friends of mine, Garrett, Tuomas, Ryan, and Jakub (and others) but aside from being personal friends, I don't know how much weight I hold in trying to sway them on changing the license. I asked in #tango and was greeted by chirping crickets. :)
I'm sure a lot of this is due to the fact they are like, working and stuff.
I just don't think we should be so quick to change the icons. I personally don't even know where these are being used??? I know I've used them in a few other projects, but haven't heard about any licensing issues.
Where are these icons in questioned being used?
Trae
On 5/30/06, grohk grohk@code0range.net wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Trae McCombs wrote:
It's such a shame to see such a great base of icons shunned due to licensing issues. I personally know the people who work on these icons, and the intent is for them to be used by the community. :/
Actually, I just thought of an option #3. Trea, you are on the about page of the Tango project, so maybe you could ask them if there might be a way to dual-license these icons?
As many of you know there was a similar licensing issue with the Mollio template [1], which was resolved by Mollio releasing their fine template under the GPL in parallel with the original CC Attribution.
Think that would work?
[1] http://www.mollio.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEfK+tO+lwfsap+f0RAuQ7AKCgc9wzbd3NALcn7hNBcM2HLPZjyACghEu6 G0zuLBM2Vx3FrDy9Wy15es4= =bMTR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ themes mailing list themes@drupal.org http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/themes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Bèr Kessels wrote:
So: Two options: (Or I missed one?)
- we mail all contributors with tango icons that they should use another set
of icons ASAP (yet to be decided which one). we change the coding style guidelines accordingly. 2) we change our licence policy.
I am in favour of the first. ITs the easiest, and it keeps matters simple.
Bèr
The TERMS.txt [1] in CVS already has language that deals with this:
"CONTENT
All information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages or any other materials whatsoever (collectively, "content"), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, are the sole responsibility of the party from which such content originated.
All content submitted to the repository is automatically assumed to be licensed under the GNU/GPL. Any content that is not licensed under the GNU/GPL should not be added to the repository and when found it will be removed by the owner."
Is this not essentially option #1?
[1] http://cvs.drupal.org/viewcvs/drupal/contributions/TERMS.txt?rev=1.1&vie...
Hola,
I'm new here, but Ted knows me. :) I'll introduce myself in another email.
As for the icons, I'd say to use the Fam Fam Fam Silk icon set, but they're under a CC license as well.
That said, here's a list of possible icon sets for use (various licenses):
http://www.maxpower.ca/free-icons/2006/03/05/ (a list of icon sets with CC, GPL, LPGL and completely Free licensing. This is probably our best bet for finding a suitable and GPL licensed icon set.)
-- Others: --
http://jimmac.musichall.cz/icons.php (not sure of license)
http://www.everaldo.com/downloads.htm (not sure of license) (Check out: Crystal Clear, Crystal SVG, Aero, Outline.)
http://browse.deviantart.com/icons/os/?view=1&order=5&limit=24 (OS Icons on DeviantArt. A lot of crap, but a few gems here and there. We could probably work something out with the designer if we pick a set.)
http://www.openclipart.org/ (All public domain/CC licensed.)
If I had any extra time whatsoever, I'd open up Axialis and whip up a completely original, custom icon set for Drupal...but that's just time I don't have.
Cheers! MJ
Bèr Kessels wrote:
Hello,
I only realised this today, but our guidelines speak about using tango as default iconset. We abide these rules very well, in the contribs the mayority if icons are indeed tango icons.
But they are not GPL, nor can they be distributed as such. We should address this, and possibly choose another default iconset, or else change our licencing policy.
«The Tango icons are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. The palette is public domain, it can be used and distributed freely. Developers, feel free to ship it along with your application. The icon naming utilities are licensed under the GPL» --- from http://tango-project.org/Tango_Desktop_Project
Bèr _______________________________________________ themes mailing list themes@drupal.org http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/themes
OH! Also: just found out that the Fam Fam Fam Mini icon set it GPL.
Lastly, here's a Norwegian thread with a bunch of links to GPL icon sets:
http://www.root.no/forum/index.php?showtopic=3287
MJ
Bèr Kessels wrote:
Hello,
I only realised this today, but our guidelines speak about using tango as default iconset. We abide these rules very well, in the contribs the mayority if icons are indeed tango icons.
But they are not GPL, nor can they be distributed as such. We should address this, and possibly choose another default iconset, or else change our licencing policy.
«The Tango icons are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. The palette is public domain, it can be used and distributed freely. Developers, feel free to ship it along with your application. The icon naming utilities are licensed under the GPL» --- from http://tango-project.org/Tango_Desktop_Project
Bèr _______________________________________________ themes mailing list themes@drupal.org http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/themes
On May 29, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Bèr Kessels wrote:
«The Tango icons are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license.
The Drupal Handbook and the admin help is also under the same license.
Kieran
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kieran Lal wrote:
On May 29, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Bèr Kessels wrote:
«The Tango icons are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license.
The Drupal Handbook and the admin help is also under the same license.
The handbook is not in CVS is it? And the Admin help is contained inside modules covered by the GPL correct? If so, then perhaps this does not affect the documentation.
Summary so far:It has been decided we cannot use tango. So let us move forward.
We should find an alternaive that does allow us to go for GPL.
Here are some possibilities:
* BlueSphere: http://svgicons.sourceforge.net/ -- SVG, so resizeable without distortion. BSD licence. See also http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=4276 * Shiira: http://hmdt-web.net/shiira/icon-e.html -- several good options imho. * idesk: http://idesk.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page (not sure if this has icons or is just a desktop tool) * FreeIcons: http://realopen.org/projects/fics/ * Marbles? http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=1581 -- not sure about licence * XOOPS icons: http://www.nongnu.org/matt-xoops/ * http://themes.freshmeat.net/projects/aquafusion/
And http://www.maxpower.ca/free-icons/2006/03/05/
Lets pick one, or go for the best option: volunteer to design a Drupal-specific set! :)
Bèr
Just an idea for Drupal 4.99: Icon-Themes!
Booth GNOME and KDE have support for themes AND icon-themes. Maybe we could add an slick and KISS way for this feature. theme('icon','apply'); If somebody want's an Tango-Iconset, we could host something like this on an external Drupal "Fan-Page".
Additional: Many New Drupal-Contrib Themes are based on oswd.org Designs, that have some restrictions too. for example the andreas01 Theme based on the andreas01 oswd.org Design:
"If you like this layout and would like to use it in any way, you are free to do so. All I ask for is that you leave the "Design by Andreas Viklund" link in the footer of the site. If you would like to remove that line, or if you are interested in professional services that are related to webdesign or this layout (such as custom design, branding, scripting or programming), please contact me through my website for more information!"
Sounds Simmilar to the "CC Bronze" Restrictions to me.
Maybe Drupal Developers should split up the Code from the Presentation also on their Repositories. Drupal.org only hosts Drupal Core and Drupal Code that is absolutly GPL. Drupal-Mods.net or something simmilar hosts a collection of Drupal-Themes, -Hacks, -Mods, Icon-Themes, Whatever, related to Drupal but with other licenses.
Am Dienstag, den 30.05.2006, 22:22 +0200 schrieb Bèr Kessels:
We should find an alternaive that does allow us to go for GPL.
I'm wondering if we're not trying to apply mileage standards to bicycles. As far as I know, the GPL is about software, not about images.
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
I may be wrong, but don't believe you can GPL an image any more than you can copyright a lawn. We're talking about different kinds of licensing, different kinds of works. An image isn't software. The image format could be considered software, so we could require that images not be in any proprietary format, such as PSD or ia. But that doesn't get to the creative property aspects.
I humbly suggest focusing on the goal, and not on the means. GPL itself is not manna. Its values are what we seek, no?
The closest thing I can find is the Creative Commons Share Alike license. However, I cannot seem to find it anywhere on their website. All of their pre-configured licenses for images require attribution, which defeats the stated goals here. But Share Alike (with the arrow- circle icon) seems to capture exactly what we're after:
Share Alike. You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses
The other approach would be to require a Public Domain Dedication of the image elements. http://creativecommons.org/license/ publicdomain-2 (I note that CC states this might not be enforceable outside of the US.)
Laura
On May 30, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Bèr Kessels wrote:
Summary so far:It has been decided we cannot use tango. So let us move forward.
We should find an alternaive that does allow us to go for GPL.
Here are some possibilities:
* BlueSphere: http://svgicons.sourceforge.net/ -- SVG, soresizeable without distortion. BSD licence. See also http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=4276 * Shiira: http://hmdt-web.net/shiira/icon-e.html -- several good options imho. * idesk: http://idesk.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page (not sure if this has icons or is just a desktop tool) * FreeIcons: http://realopen.org/projects/fics/ * Marbles? http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php? content=1581 -- not sure about licence * XOOPS icons: http://www.nongnu.org/matt-xoops/ * http://themes.freshmeat.net/projects/aquafusion/
And http://www.maxpower.ca/free-icons/2006/03/05/
Lets pick one, or go for the best option: volunteer to design a Drupal-specific set! :)
Bèr
[ End user Drupal services and hosting | Sympal.nl ]
Drupal upgrade repareert kritiek beveiligingslek: http://help.sympal.nl/ drupal_upgrade_repareert_kritiek_beveiligingslek _______________________________________________ themes mailing list themes@drupal.org http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/themes
http://jimmac.musichall.cz/i.php?i=git2
Jakub pointed this out to me. It follows the Tango Guidelines, yet is GPL. Perhaps it would be the most suitable replacement.
Someone could have suggested this already, sorry if I missed it. :)
Trae
On 5/30/06, Laura Scott laura@pingv.com wrote:
I'm wondering if we're not trying to apply mileage standards to bicycles. As far as I know, the GPL is about software, not about images.
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
I may be wrong, but don't believe you can GPL an image any more than you can copyright a lawn. We're talking about different kinds of licensing, different kinds of works. An image isn't software. The image format could be considered software, so we could require that images not be in any proprietary format, such as PSD or ia. But that doesn't get to the creative property aspects.
I humbly suggest focusing on the goal, and not on the means. GPL itself is not manna. Its values are what we seek, no?
The closest thing I can find is the Creative Commons Share Alike license. However, I cannot seem to find it anywhere on their website. All of their pre-configured licenses for images require attribution, which defeats the stated goals here. But Share Alike (with the arrow- circle icon) seems to capture exactly what we're after:
Share Alike. You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses
The other approach would be to require a Public Domain Dedication of the image elements. http://creativecommons.org/license/ publicdomain-2 (I note that CC states this might not be enforceable outside of the US.)
Laura
On May 30, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Bèr Kessels wrote:
Summary so far:It has been decided we cannot use tango. So let us move forward.
We should find an alternaive that does allow us to go for GPL.
Here are some possibilities:
* BlueSphere: http://svgicons.sourceforge.net/ -- SVG, soresizeable without distortion. BSD licence. See also http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=4276 * Shiira: http://hmdt-web.net/shiira/icon-e.html -- several good options imho. * idesk: http://idesk.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page (not sure if this has icons or is just a desktop tool) * FreeIcons: http://realopen.org/projects/fics/ * Marbles? http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php? content=1581 -- not sure about licence * XOOPS icons: http://www.nongnu.org/matt-xoops/ * http://themes.freshmeat.net/projects/aquafusion/
And http://www.maxpower.ca/free-icons/2006/03/05/
Lets pick one, or go for the best option: volunteer to design a Drupal-specific set! :)
Bèr
[ End user Drupal services and hosting | Sympal.nl ]
Drupal upgrade repareert kritiek beveiligingslek: http://help.sympal.nl/ drupal_upgrade_repareert_kritiek_beveiligingslek _______________________________________________ themes mailing list themes@drupal.org http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/themes
themes mailing list themes@drupal.org http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/themes
It says it's NOT public domain and has copyright marks at the bottom...
Trae McCombs wrote:
http://jimmac.musichall.cz/i.php?i=git2
Jakub pointed this out to me. It follows the Tango Guidelines, yet is GPL. Perhaps it would be the most suitable replacement.
Someone could have suggested this already, sorry if I missed it. :)
Trae
On 5/30/06, *Laura Scott* <laura@pingv.com mailto:laura@pingv.com> wrote:
I'm wondering if we're not trying to apply mileage standards to bicycles. As far as I know, the GPL is about software, not about images. > The licenses for most software are designed to take away your > freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public > License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change > free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. > This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software > Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit > to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is > covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can > apply it to your programs, too. I may be wrong, but don't believe you can GPL an image any more than you can copyright a lawn. We're talking about different kinds of licensing, different kinds of works. An image isn't software. The image format could be considered software, so we could require that images not be in any proprietary format, such as PSD or ia. But that doesn't get to the creative property aspects. I humbly suggest focusing on the goal, and not on the means. GPL itself is not manna. Its values are what we seek, no? The closest thing I can find is the Creative Commons Share Alike license. However, I cannot seem to find it anywhere on their website. All of their pre-configured licenses for images require attribution, which defeats the stated goals here. But Share Alike (with the arrow- circle icon) seems to capture exactly what we're after: > Share Alike. You allow others to distribute derivative works only > under a license identical to the license that governs your work. http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses The other approach would be to require a Public Domain Dedication of the image elements. http://creativecommons.org/license/ <http://creativecommons.org/license/> publicdomain-2 (I note that CC states this might not be enforceable outside of the US.) Laura On May 30, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Bèr Kessels wrote: > Summary so far:It has been decided we cannot use tango. So let us move > forward. > > We should find an alternaive that does allow us to go for GPL. > > Here are some possibilities: > > * BlueSphere: http://svgicons.sourceforge.net/ <http://svgicons.sourceforge.net/> -- SVG, so > resizeable > without distortion. BSD licence. See also > http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=4276 <http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=4276> > * Shiira: http://hmdt-web.net/shiira/icon-e.html -- several good > options imho. > * idesk: http://idesk.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page > (not > sure if this has icons or is just a desktop tool) > * FreeIcons: http://realopen.org/projects/fics/ <http://realopen.org/projects/fics/> > * Marbles? http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php? > content=1581 -- > not sure about licence > * XOOPS icons: http://www.nongnu.org/matt-xoops/ > * http://themes.freshmeat.net/projects/aquafusion/ > > And http://www.maxpower.ca/free-icons/2006/03/05/ > > Lets pick one, or go for the best option: volunteer to design a > Drupal-specific set! :) > > Bèr > -- > [ End user Drupal services and hosting | Sympal.nl <http://Sympal.nl> ] > > > Drupal upgrade repareert kritiek beveiligingslek: > http://help.sympal.nl/ > drupal_upgrade_repareert_kritiek_beveiligingslek > _______________________________________________ > themes mailing list > themes@drupal.org <mailto:themes@drupal.org> > http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/themes <http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/themes> _______________________________________________ themes mailing list themes@drupal.org <mailto:themes@drupal.org> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/themes <http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/themes>-- Trae McCombs || http://occy.net/ Founder - Themes.org http://Themes.org // Linux.com http://Linux.com CivicSpaceLabs - http://civicspacelabs.com/
themes mailing list themes@drupal.org http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/themes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Laura Scott wrote:
I'm wondering if we're not trying to apply mileage standards to bicycles. As far as I know, the GPL is about software, not about images.
Actually, the GPL can be applied to any work [1]:
"Can I use the GPL for something other than software?
You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the "source code" for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it."
My personal definition of "source code" in images would be an editable versions of the work. But that is just my interpretation.
Although, the FSF itself recommends the Free Art License [2] for creative works, there is no barrier I know of for using the GPL for image files.
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
This is the preamble to the GPL, and is more of a manifesto than a binding clause.
I may be wrong, but don't believe you can GPL an image any more than you can copyright a lawn. We're talking about different kinds of licensing, different kinds of works. An image isn't software. The image format could be considered software, so we could require that images not be in any proprietary format, such as PSD or ia. But that doesn't get to the creative property aspects.
Restrictions, property and copyrights are the problem. Applying the GPL to the files distributed in the Drupal package ensures that the Freedom of developers and users alike is protected.
I humbly suggest focusing on the goal, and not on the means. GPL itself is not manna. Its values are what we seek, no?
Yes, I agree. But careful examination of the aspects of the CC attribution license reveal my concern...Every attribution for every file and theme *might* be an obligation that becomes a burden and I think that if we are to accept alternative licenses into the repository we need to ensure the freedom of the project by drafting something like the Debian Free Software Guidelines [3]. It is worth noting that the Debian-Legal mailing list does not consider CC 2.0 licenses to be DFSG compliant [4].
The closest thing I can find is the Creative Commons Share Alike license. However, I cannot seem to find it anywhere on their website. All of their pre-configured licenses for images require attribution, which defeats the stated goals here. But Share Alike (with the arrow-circle icon) seems to capture exactly what we're after:
Share Alike. You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.
I found it here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/
It is worth noting that, as far as I can tell, all 2.0 and greater CC licenses require attribution which can be expressly waived by the author.
The other approach would be to require a Public Domain Dedication of the image elements. http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain-2 (I note that CC states this might not be enforceable outside of the US.)
This is a lot to think about, and this won't be the last time this comes up...But I still think the GNU GPL offers the best overall coverage in terms of flexibility and freedom.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware [2] http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ [3] http://www.debian.org/social_contract [4] http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
I'm wondering if we're not trying to apply mileage standards to bicycles. As far as I know, the GPL is about software, not about images.
I think you are so right here.
Icon sets are a tricky problem. We could:
a) provide an own default set b) borrow one and fork it so it resides in drupal cvs c) provide packaging and naming guidelines d) provide a script[s] to automatically convert from known collections - gnome, kde (AFAIK they should conform to the freedesktop.org standards)
As you can see the above are not strictly alternatives, there is an overlap.
For images, documentation and similar material I think we should allow other types of licenses, but this needs to be thought through carefully. We don't want complications in the long run.
I would suggest that adopting the Debian policy will make a lot of sense in this case. It is a long document, but it makes sense to avoid the lengthy flames wich lurk below the surface. http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html
The key, IMO, "free to use, modify and distribute" without any restrictions is the important bit. The license itself can be under Creative Commons, not all variants, GPL, FreeBSD documentation license, LDP, public domain, whatever as long as the above trinity is guaranteed.
My two and a half bits
Vlado
-
Adrian Rossouw -
Bèr Kessels -
Christian Berg -
Dries Buytaert -
Erik Mallinson -
Farsheed -
grohk -
Kieran Lal -
Laura Scott -
Rowan Kerr -
SavoryMedia (site email) -
Trae McCombs -
Vladimir Zlatanov