Tim McNamara wrote: > On 13 February 2010 09:15, Sebastian Dziallas <sebast...@when.com > <mailto:sebast...@when.com>> wrote: > > If nobody complains by the end of this weekend, I'll just upload the > images, put a GPLv2+ license in the archive and make a tarball, as this > is what they've been listed under in Strawberry and Blueberry, too. > > --Sebastian > > > Sebastian, apparently the GPL isn't really that great for creative > works, like images & documents. Will see if I can get some more info by > the end of the weekend. > > Tim
Alright, so here's the thing: I basically don't care what it's licensed under, as long as it's in the blessed license list either here [1] or here [2]. It would make certainly sense to go with a content license instead, agreed. And I guess from how our logo policy [3] looks like, we might need to have a some more restrictive one there, since the tarball would essentially only bundle the boot screen (I guess it wouldn't make much sense to put something that's intended for SoaS in the sugar-artwork package, right? - Simon?). From the wiki table in [2], it looks like we could go with a CC-BY-ND, too. Is everybody alright with this? --Sebastian [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses_3 [3] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Marketing_Team/Logo#Logo_usage _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
