Hi, I don't know if this proves anything, but I was interested in
determining the license of the dt logo. I found this on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darktable#mediaviewer/File:Darktable_icon.svg
...with the following text accompanying the logo:
This work is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
> the terms of the GNU General Public Licenseas published by the Free
> Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or any later version.
> This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but without
> any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
> orfitness for a particular purpose. See version 2 and version 3 of the GNU
> General Public License for more details.
-Mark
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:00 PM, <
[email protected]> wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:44:50 +0200
> From: Tobias Ellinghaus <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Darktable-users] Want to add DT logo on my website
> To: [email protected]
> Message-ID: <1888463.CBxRK60dLt@liber>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Am Montag, 23. Juni 2014, 14:10:20 schrieb Alexander Wagner:
> > 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.
>
> That would only be true if there was a file that explicitly said that
> everything in the repository was GPL ? and even then I am not completely
> sure.
> There is a reason why all the source files state that they are under GPL
> in the
> header. Besides, it is quite common for artwork, logos or other
> accompanying
> data to be under a different license as the program itself. See for
> example our
> usermanual.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, that is true for changes to our code as that is explicitly GPL, and
> every
> change you do and submit to us is technically a release of a derivative
> work
> to the public, so it automatically becomes GPL again and we can just take
> it
> and add it to our code.
>
> > 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.
>
> True, for example we have a few parts that were borrowed from others and
> that
> are under a BSD license with our changes we put on top being GPL which
> makes
> the whole thing GPL. But that still only affects our source code. Graphics
> like
> SVG files are not linked into the program and not compiled in.
>
> Note that we already made the implicit assumption that our logo IS in fact
> under a license compatible with GPL because at one place we DO compile it
> into
> the program. But that isn't canonical truth, it's just that we did it that
> way.
>
> > 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.
>
> This would only be true for files compiled into the program, linked to the
> program or similar things. Files loaded and displayed during runtime are
> not
> affected. Otherwise Firefox could only show open source websites.
>
> > 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.)
>
> That license statement only says that the file shown there is under
> CC-BY-SA.
> It doesn't have to be the very same file we have in git, it might also be
> a re-
> draw (which I don't think it is, just saying).
>
> > 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. ;)
>
> I don't get this. The authors release their work under some license, they
> themselves can do whatever they want with it. Even show NC stuff on a
> commercial site. man dual licensing.
>
> > 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...
>
> (This is getting a little OT, but I personally agree with lawyers saying
> that
> a beneficiary concert is still a commercial event.)
>
> > 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
>
> It would be next to impossible to drop the NC part of the website as
> everyone
> ever having edited it would have to agree. And I don't see any problem with
> having it NC. If someone with commercial interests wants to use parts of
> our
> website he can just contact us/the authors and ask for permission.
>
> Tobias
>
> PS: All I wanted to point out in my original mail was that while it is
> probably no problem at all we might want to clarify the legal state of our
> assets like the logo.
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 819 bytes
> Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
>
> ------------------------------
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft
_______________________________________________
Darktable-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
