Frank Hecker wrote:
As Gerv noted, the MPL/GPL/LGPL have clauses pertaining to preservation of copyright and license notices.
This is a good point. If I understand your comments correctly, you seem to be suggesting that the artwork be licensed under MPL/GPL/LGPL since those licenses should be sufficient to achieve what the artist wants, which is attribution for her artwork, and anything else that isn't equivalent to or freer than the most restrictively-copyleft bits of those licenses would would make it ineligible for distribution in an extension that is tri-licensed.
Also, a suggestion I have is that since the artwork you're using presumably includes artwork for the UI, and probably uses CSS sprites (cf. http://mxr.mozilla.org/firefox/source/browser/themes/winstripe/browser/Toolbar.png and http://mxr.mozilla.org/firefox/source/browser/themes/winstripe/browser/browser.css#261). I think it would be neat if the image itself were edited to include the copyright/attribution byline at the bottom, while the skin CSS continues restricting the displayable region.
This is a nice analog to source code, in the way that the raw source files themselves contain readily apparent licensing verbiage, although its not present during use except for explicit notices in the appropriate "About" dialogs, etc.
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
