[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [gNewSense-users] thunderbird icons

From: Graziano Sorbaioli
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] thunderbird icons
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:54:24 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090105)

Hash: SHA1

Benedikt Ahrens ha scritto:
> Thanks for your reply.
> So i understand that the support for non-free plugins is considered a
> no-do, but the inclusion of non-free artwork is considered ok.

Plugins are software, artwork is not software.

> I cite from [2]:
> " Non-functional Data


You are mixing things.
When FSF created the guidelines for free distributions it pointed to an
higher goal (even the artwork should be licensed under a libre license).

It would be better to do so but artwork is not an essental part of the
software and if the artwork can be easily replaced then the software can
be considered free.

> Does Mozilla allow the copying and distribution of the icon? I suppose
> yes, since Ubuntu and others do this without intervention of Mozilla.

Please read here:


Isn't having the logo files under a different license incompatible with
the GPL?
    First off, the Mozilla Foundation binaries are distributed under MPL
terms, so this question doesn't arise in practice.

    But, even if it did, we don't believe it's incompatible with the GPL
anyway. We are following the interpretation that the logo files are not
part of the program itself (e.g., the Firefox browser), they are simply
data used by that program, and changing the logo data has absolutely no
effect on the functional use of the program. We therefore believe that
licensing of the logo files themselves is outside the scope of any GPL
terms that might be applied to other Mozilla source files (i.e., under
the Mozilla tri-license).

    This position is consistent with comments on the FSF web site
regarding GPL compatibility of a particular font license; see the entry
in the FSF's GPL-incompatible license list regarding the Arphic Public
License. However in the GPL FAQ the FSF does not address this issue


> If so, it is somewhat misleading to call the icon non-free, since it
> can be part of a free operating system - even though it may not be
> modified.
> Since freeness for software and arts seem to be different things,
> might one want to have different terminology also?

Mixing things, read above.

> After what you said, Graziano, it seems like Thunderbird is free
> software only after removing the icon. This seems to contradict the
> citation above (assumed the permission to distribute the unmodified
> logo).

software is not artwork.

- --
Graziano Sorbaioli ~
Libre Planet Italia
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


reply via email to

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