On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 10:32 +0200, Stephan Arts wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Thomas Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > I think Jakub tried to clear this up. Basically, I was trying to say if > > your non-GPL application references an icon that is clearly from a GPL > > theme without providing the icon itself, then this could be considered a > > violation. I could argue that using any gnome-* icon name indicates a > > reliance on the GNOME icon theme, which is GPL (almost all themes use > > this as a fallback). > > > > Does this make sense? > > Not at all, if the icon is bundled with the software, then yes. > > But there is no way any developer can figure out if the icon-theme in > question is GPL-ed or not. And calling the use of an icon-name (a > convention to make sure the same 'type' of icon is used across > applications) a violation of the GPL?! > > That's rediculous.
Well, I'm quite happy to scrap that idea if it's what people want. However, I believe the gnome-* convention is only specified in Nautilus source code, which is GPL. So either way, if you specify a gnome-* icon name in your non-GPL application and don't supply a non-GPL icon, it seems fairly obvious you have copied some GPL code to get it to work? I believe this is similar to the dynamic linking argument in software and the GPL[1]. Regards, Thomas [1] Of which there is a short description in the first paragraph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#The_GPL_in_court _______________________________________________ gnome-themes-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-themes-list
