Hi, On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:01 AM, jEsuSdA 8) <lis...@jesusda.com> wrote: > El 29/10/13 01:57, Jehan Pagès escribió: > >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM, jEsuSdA 8) <lis...@jesusda.com> wrote: >>> >>> El 28/10/13 18:37, Alexandre Prokoudine escribió: >>>> >>>> >>>> Is your theme from October 4 the latest version? >>> >>> >>> Here is the latest version: >>> >>> http://www.jesusda.com/files/symbolic-gimp.7z >>> >> >> Reading Sven email about a possible licensing issue, and if I >> understand, you are the author of the icon set. Would you accept to >> double license your work under a GPL license? I guess this would >> simplify the whole discussion and problematic. >> > > I am not the author of all icons. The main work was made by the Gnome Design > Team (I think Jimmac has made this nice work). I transformed and created new > ones, and I converted all the work to a gimp theme. > > I have absolutely no problem to license and relicense this theme. I think > there are no problem about that and I made this work not only for me, but > for all gimp users. > > So, if you think a dual license or relicense of the work it will be fine, > then all is ok for me. ;)
Cool! > Of course, you must ask Jimmac too. > > > > >> By the way, Sven, which GPL version is the theme? >> >> Anyway yes, I would love to see a dark theme with a renewed icon set >> available in GIMP 2.10. :-) > > > > The problem with CC and GPL appears to be when you include the icons in > binary files. As both CC and GPL forces to mantain the same license in > derivative works, is not posible to include the icon in a gimp binary and > mantain the software on GPL or mantain the icons in CC, cause is the same > file. > > The Gimp icons ARE NOT COMPILED, are ONLY USED, and anybody can EXTRACT and > MANIPULATE the icons mantaining the CC license restrictions, so, I think it > is possible include a set of CC icons in Gimp and this not violate CC and > GPL, cause GPL is for code and CC is for the icon theme. That's also what I thought and what I said earlier on this thread: > I know that the FSF says not to use it for code, but it says it is > good for arts though. And I think since themes are not "compiled in" > or "linked" to the code, And Michael Schumacher answered to this by: > They are. Their icons at least, see > https://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/tree/themes/Default/images/Makefile.am#n394 > ff. So well now I'm not sure anymore. Though checking the said file, I would not say they are "compiled" in, merely listed as filenames (which could therefore apply to any other set of icons with the same names). Only stock-question-64.png seems kind of compiled as pixel data into gimp-core-pixbufs.h. So I would say that if problem there were for licensing, it would be only on this icon (and since this icon displays a Wilber, I guess it was not in the original set, and you are the author, aren't you?). > Is the same case as help files or plugins. They can use other licenses, > cause you can clearly separate the help files or plugin from main gimp > application. > > I undertand this when reading the Sven mail. I'm wrong or wright? Then indeed in Sven's email, the FSF person says: > if the software is merely displaying the icons, could > just as well display any others, and doesn't rely on specific attributes > of those particular icons then they shouldn't be considered derivatives > and could be distributed alongside the GPL'd work in mere aggregation > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation) So here I understand that it can indeed very well apply to icons (even though they might be compiled somehow in some cases?), because a theme and icons are replaceable in "mere aggregation", and there is nothing specific about any icon set. In any case, I would think that there is no problem at all. But same as the FSF replier said, I am no layer either. The simpler and safer is to re-license. That's why I asked. If all authors license to GPL3+, same as the rest of the code, then we just have no problem altogether, for sure. Of course, this is only because we may want to distribute this publicly. For any icon set, theme, plugin or whatever which is not distributed (a user made it for himself) or distributed separately and aggregated to GIMP later, then there is no legal issue for the user, who is perfectly allowed to do so. Jehan > > > Thank you! > jEsuSdA 8) _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
