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

[Daniel Carrera]

IANAL - Yes, I think so.

On Thu, 2006-16-11 at 15:14 +0100, Pete Harlow wrote:
> So I should really state that the icons are Trade Marks rather than
> Copyright... which I presume I can state with no further action as
> they are not *registered* trade marks?
> 
> -P.
> 
> On 16/11/06, Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera at zmsl.com> wrote:
>         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."
>         
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         odf-discuss mailing list
>         odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.org
>         http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
>         
>         
>         
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Pete Harlow
> Catnip Corner - Photography by Pete Harlow - http://www.catnip.co.uk/
> OpenDocument Icons - http://www.catnip.co.uk/opendocument/icons/
> OpenDocument Fellowship - http://opendocumentfellowship.org/
> Play Ogg Vorbis on your iPod - http://www.rockbox.org/ 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061116/3feb01d3/attachment-0001.pgp