Il 20/10/2014 22:53, Luis Villa ha scritto:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Ricordisamoa <ricordisa...@openmailbox.org>
wrote:
Are there policies/guidelines regarding the use of third-party icons in
software maintained on WMF's Gerrit instance (e.g. MediaWiki extensions)?
I'm unaware of any formal policies, aside from a general requirement that
icons (like everything else hosted in git) be under an open license of some
sort. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have that written down somewhere.
(I note that there are no icons in the git repo itself, that I can find;
this does not excuse problematic licensing, but does make it slightly less
urgent to resolve.)
For example, the Chameleon <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Chameleon>
skin appears to use Glyphicons <http://glyphicons.com>, whose license <
http://glyphicons.com/license/> is not very clear.
The license looks fairly clear to me: png ("free") version is under CC;
version included with bootstrap is MIT; other versions are non-free.
Thanks! I misunderstood the sentence «you are not required to include
attribution on your Bootstrap-based projects» and thought the free
license was bound to the presence of the Bootstrap. At a closer look, it
is clear I was wrong.
Has the author said things elsewhere to indicate that he(?) doesn't
understand the MIT terms, or somehow believes they aren't under MIT?
Assuming Chameleon uses the icons included with Bootstrap, this looks
fairly straightforward to me.
Even git.wikimedia.org <https://git.wikimedia.org> uses Glyphicons (the
free PNG version) without complying with the CC-BY 3.0 license.
If we're using them on git.wikimedia.org, we should probably fix that. (I
see Chad says there is an upstream bug, but I can't find it for the life of
me, despite looking in three different places. gitblit doesn't strike me as
the most... organized project I've ever looked at.)
Wouldn't it be better to use a really /free/ icon set (such as
Font-Awesome <https://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/> or Elusive
Icons <http://shoestrap.org/downloads/elusive-icons-webfont/>) instead?
As discussed above, parts of Glyphicon are CC and/or MIT, which is "really
free". There may be a discussion to be had around development models,
sustainability, community-friendliness, etc., and if you want to have that
discussion, by all means! But please don't confuse/complicate the
discussion by saying things under free licenses aren't "really free" - if
you're doing that, you're using the terms in a very different way from
common, long-term usage.
Hope that helps-
It helped, as always!
Luis
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
