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

Daniel Carrera daniel.carrera at zmsl.com
Thu Nov 16 10:07:30 EST 2006


I don't know either. Feel free to update the pages any way you like.

On Thu, 2006-16-11 at 15:43 +0100, Pete Harlow wrote:
> I'm still not sure where this leaves you if you want to combine the
> ODF Monogram(tm) with, say, the background from KDE Crystal (as in
> http://www.catnip.co.uk/opendocument/graphics/kdeodf64x64.png) as,
> despite what we have said here, the Crystal Theme is under the LGPL
> http://www.kde-artists.org/node/122
> 
> Any way, I'll do my page when I have FTP access. Do we want to add
> this info to the fellowship wiki pages? I can do this tomorrow if you
> like. 
> 
> -P.
> 
> On 16/11/06, Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera at zmsl.com> wrote:
>         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."
>         
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         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/
-- 
"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/a83ae557/attachment-0001.pgp


More information about the odf-discuss mailing list