gnewsense-art
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gNewSense-art] A license issue for artwork within the gNS OS?


From: Karl Goetz
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-art] A license issue for artwork within the gNS OS?
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 18:59:31 +1000

On Tue, 29 May 2012 02:04:23 +0200
al3xu5 / dotcommon <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> As a consequence of the many considerations that have been made here
> in the recent thread [1] about 'Re-Licensing Artwork', I would like
> to submit a doubt as to the possibility we have a license issue with
> artwork used within the gNS operating system: logos, wallpapers,
> themes, icons, buttons etc. (here now I am not referring to images,
> videos etc. related with documentation in the gNS's wiki).
> 
> We have shown that since now most of the artwork used within the gNS
> operating system has been licensed as CC BY-SA, though (as as pointed
> out by samgee) some artwork is under the GPL license. Also we found
> that the CC BY-SA license is incompatible with the GNU FDL [2].

I'm not convinced thats correct - look at images/README in the builder
source tree. This would indicate for gNS <=2.x there is no problem.

18:56:57 address@hidden: ~/src/gns-builder $ cat images/README 
ubiquity.png is from the ubiquity Ubuntu package, but with the Ubuntu logo 
removed

The gNewSense logo (lettering) was designed by Li Jiang and is released under 
the GPLv2 or later

The Palm Tree motif and Elephants were designed by Joshua "Jag" Ginsberg and is 
released under the GPLv2 or later

The sky and road picture is copyright Dave Crossland, and is released under the 
GFDL without invariant sections

The gNewSense-KDE motifs and logo were modified by Angela Tatiana P. and are 
released under the GPLv2 or later


> But, in fact, this incompatibilty also exists [2] between CC BY-SA
> and GNU GPL!!!
> 
> Hence the doubt: the artwork to be used within the gNS operating
> system should be relicensed to the GPL (to avoid incompatibility or
> license violation)???

Ideally (or dual licenced).

> Since the issue is quite relevant, perhaps it would be appropriate to
> ask FSF to confirm if the problem really exists and then for
> clarification on the better approach to adopt.

If we are involving the FSF, first we should have a plan, then ask them
to say if they think we're sane or not.
thanks,
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK7FOSS)
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group
*** I've changed GPG key to 6C097260 ***

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]