On 06/23/2014 11:29 AM, Tobias Ellinghaus wrote: Hi!
>> Probably, it would be a good idea to place some stanza concerning this >> on the website. Though there is no need for this as it is ruled by GPL >> already, I think it might be worthwile to express it explicitly as >> especially in the arts (like photography ;) one usually has only >> commercial licenses. Probably, even providing an html-snippet with the >> linkback and proper logo would be helpful. > > Actually I am not sure what license the logo is under. Or who has a say in > that (i.e., who contributed to the file). Without that being clear we > shouldn't > encourage people to use the logo. Or maybe it is clear and I just forgot the > details. ;) If dt is GPL, then the artwork, IMHO being part of dts /code/, has to be GPL as well. And then GPL applies. In principle, no need to track down people, and more specifically no need to ask. That's why you specify the license in the first place: you /don't want/ to be asked every time. Additionally, if I contribute to an OS project being under GPL I also assume GPL applies to all parts, and I even explicitly consent to that license as well for my parts. Otherwise, to the best of my knowledge, my stuff would break GPL and I just can't contribute. So I have to consent to GPL again, and GPL applies again. Instead of GPL one could, in principle, have a license compatible with GPL within the project, but then it's at least compatible and reuse would be allowed at least in the limits of GPL again. To be compabible you'd need to allow at least as much as GPL or more, but not less. So one would be safe in the limits of GPL again. As an example from the CC world, which is a bit easier due to the "steps" they use (but useless for code): CC-BY is compabible to CC-BY-SA but not vice versa as the latter imposes a/the sensible limit to the reuse. Probably, the only point one might discuss, is, wether a logo is code in the framework of GPL. I'd argue that SVG (icon of dt) is code even more as it is included in dt's git and used for buidling the package. You use it within your code in the upper left of the main window not only for the desktop object. In my book this is code, thus GPL applies, it is ignorant of the language of code. It seems, that Wikipedia shares this view: at least they use the DT logo on the Wikipedia pages about dt. They mention Klaus Staedtler as author and Wikipedia requires you to use at least something like CC-BY-SA. So if they don't remove it as being GPL I'd argue that every photographer might use it as well as the NC stanza is not assumed by them to apply. (No, Wikipedia is not perfect, but usually they are a bit picky when it comes to licenses.) A bit difficult IMHO will be the images and texts on the dt webpages. Those are licensed CC-BY-NC-SA. In the context of professional photography lawyers may argue that using them in this context constitutes a "commercial" use. Note that this would have to be dts (or the authors) lawyers. ;) In my experience as soon as lawyers see the NC they get very creative about the word "commercial". For non-lawyers, like me, those discussions are a bit un-earthly and utterly strange. One example is a beneficiary concert, say for a childrens cancer fund, using CCBYNC-music and selling beer to the participants where the earnings end up in that very fund. In my book clearly non-commercial use of the music, lawyers still dicuss that point heavily where one argument goes like: you'd not sell as much beer without the music so the music is stimulating your beer sellings which is commercial act even though its sold for the public good which doesn't matter, you sell and pay the brewery. I'm not sure that one has to buy this argument. But as the disscussion goes this is indeed considered valid... Anyway, considering the NC here and switch to a -SA alone might solve the issue, even without harming the purpose. Point is the very small area where the NC actually prevents a commercial use. cf. http://creativecommons.org/freeworks -- Kind regards, / War is Peace. | Freedom is Slavery. Alexander Wagner | Ignorance is Strength. | | Theory : G. Orwell, "1984" / In practice: USA, since 2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems _______________________________________________ Darktable-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
