On Wednesday 21 April 2010 22:38:06 you wrote: > On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Javier Llorente wrote: > > On Wednesday 21 April 2010 20:12:00 William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> On 4/21/2010 11:37 AM, Javier Llorente wrote: > >>> On Wednesday 21 April 2010 17:50:41 Rich Bowen wrote: > >>>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Javier Llorente wrote: > >>>>> Apache's current icons are a bit out-of-date, so I've created a > >>>>> collection of > >>>>> icons for Apache; it has oxygen+crystal+custom icons, a config file > >>>>> and a > >>>>> README. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps it could be included in Apache, so that sys admins have > >>>>> another option > >>>>> > >>>>> :-) > >>>>> > >>>>> You can see it live at http://www.javierllorente.com/tmp/ > >>>> > >>>> +1 > >>>> > >>>> Am I correct in understanding that you're donating these to the Apache > >>>> HTTP Server project, or that they're under a license that permits us > >>>> to redistribute them? > >>> > >>> Oops I forgot. It's under the LGPL. I am not sure if it's compatible > >>> with Apache's licensing policy. > >> > >> Well, that's not happening then, but thanks for your enthusiasm :) > > > > I have used some LGPL'ed icons. However, from my understanding of the > > LGPL, I could change the license of my collection to make it compatible; > > > > Quoting from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html > > > > 4. Combined Works. > > > > You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken > > together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the > > Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for > > debugging such modifications, if you also do each of the following: > > > > * a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that > > the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by > > this License. > > * b) Accompany the Combined Work with a copy of the GNU GPL and this > > license document. > > [...] > > First; works won't be accepted with a[ny] GPL license [AGPL, LGPL, GPL > etc]. The existence of two license files in the source repository would be > confusing and misleading to the user, where the ASF has chosen to > distribute the code strictly under one (non-copyleft) election among > multiple licenses offered. > > Second; the ASF will not combine source code works. The combination you > quote above that can and do inevitably happen with the use of ASF works > when used in combination with copyleft works is left to the user's > discretion and for the user to decipher and comply with (in terms of their > net responsibilities under the combined licenses). This paragraph deals > with, for example, SuSE's choice to combine Apache httpd with your icon > collection. > > Now, the ASF is happy to consider contributions under the Apache License, > or any license which does not add additional restrictions (e.g. copyleft > clauses) or subtract any rights (e.g. non-commercial use only clauses) > when added into the Apache License of the combined work. For example, the > BSD license, sans advertising requirement, satisfies this consideration. > > The choice of license here is interesting; because your work should > necessarily always be conveyed in source code (e.g. an image > representation) that is transmitted to all end users (e.g. as broadly as > the AGPL would require) there is really no difference between licensing > these icons in BSD, AL, or LGPL. Licensing in GPL or AGPL would of course > add further requirements with respect to the source code of the entire > work. The only right you lose in offering a more flexible BSD or AL, > rather than LGPL, is the redistribution with reuse license requirement of > any modified icons if someone based a set of icons on your original art. > > So if these are your own originala works, and you have not conveyed all > copyright to another party (e.g. the FSF) - but retain the right to convey > licenses yourself, and you would like to offer these under an Apache > License to the ASF, we would be glad to continue the discussion of > accepting such an offer. >
Here's a more detailed explanation of my situation: I have hand picked some Oxygen icons, adapted (modified) some Oxygen and Crystal icons, and created the configuration & README. The Oxygen icons are under both LGPL and CC-by-SA Quoting http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ [...] "Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license." It seems to me that the cc-by-sa is ok in this case. I could re-license my collection to have it under the Apache license. The Crystal icons are under the LGPL (only, no dual licensing from what I've read). So I understand that here lies the problem. I could look for a solution like replacing them (they're just a few). Another possibility could be having distributions (if they choose to do so) shipping Apache with this collection of icons enabled by default. But I prefer contributing my grain of salt upstream so that anyone can use it, regardless of the distribution. BTW, thanks a lot for you explanation on licensing :) Greetings, -- Javier Llorente
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
