[odf-discuss] Apache2 and ODF (was: 16x16 mime type icons)

[Daniel Carrera]

Thomas, I'm sorry, but you are confused. You are going on and on about
copyright licenses and copyright licenses have nothing to do with icons.
Yes, we know this for sure, yes we did talk to a lawyer. The Software
Freedom Law Centre said that for icons copyright law is completely
irrelevant, and we should be looking at trademark law. No point in
talking about GPL, LGPL, BSD or Creative Commons, that's all copyright
stuff. The SFLC said they couldn't represent us, but suggested we get
legal advice and get a trademark license. Yes, they did suggest getting
a trademark license. They just said to make it permissive. That's what
we have today. We also asked Ubuntu (as an example of a GNU/Linux
distro) if the license we picked was acceptable to them, and they said
it was, and that they would be willing to use the icon using that
trademark license.

Daniel.


On Thu, 2006-16-11 at 14:45 +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> I think you are confusing two points here.
> 
> * The bsd-original license meant that in documentation or other places where 
> the end product was shipped the name of the author(s) was to be placed. This 
> is indeed a no-go as you saw.
> 
> * The point that CC makes is that the author of the work needs to be 
> registered very much like the author of a piece of sourcecode adds his name 
> to the header of the file.
> This is required by copyright law. If there is no named copyright holder you 
> can't copy the copyrighted content. As well as a license, if there is no 
> license, you can't copy the work.
> 
> If you read the actual license[1] you will see that (4 a and b) will require 
> anyone to a) point out the actual license the files are under and b) the 
> name/email of the author.
> 
> This is (legally) different from what you have on your page now and IMO not a 
> problem at all.
> 
> 1) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/
> 
> On Thursday 16 November 2006 14:05, Pete Harlow wrote:
> > Thomas,
> >
> > It was *having* attribution that was the problem. The deed says "*
> > Attribution*. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
> > author or licensor." and I suppose it is possible to say "No attribution
> > required". But I am told many projects shy away from contributions under
> > the CC licence because of 'attribution creep', the requirement to keep and
> > manage huge lists of contributors.
> >
> > On 16/11/06, Thomas Zander <zander at kde.org> wrote:
> > > On Thursday 16 November 2006 13:29, Pete Harlow wrote:
> > > > IIRC the problem with the CC licence was the one of attribution, and
> > >
> > > with
> > >
> > > > the FSF licences obviously one of using the work in commercial
> > > > packages.
> > >
> > > Did you try the wizard I linked to?
> > > It allows for attribution.
> > >
> > > Not that I think its a smart thing to ask for if your first goal is to
> > > have a
> > > big uptake.
> > > --
> > > Thomas Zander
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > odf-discuss mailing list
> > > odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.org
> > > http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.org
> http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
-- 
"I AM in shape. Round IS a shape."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20061116/e688e51a/attachment-0001.pgp