Hi, Dan. Yes, good idea with the quick fix.
On a site called Icon Finder, there is a set of PDF icons which meet the Adobe licensing requirement (as far as I understand) and are of professional quality: http://www.iconfinder.com/icondetails/8890/128/pdf_reader_icon. We could basically use those PNGs as-is. I would vote in favor of that icon over the GNOME one. The icon is part of the Oxygen icon theme, dual-license: http://www.oxygen-icons.org/?page_id=4. Alexey Lazar PALS Information System Developer and Integrator 507-389-2907 http://www.mnpals.org/ On Apr 30, 2012, at 15:21 , Dan Scott wrote: > Hey folks: > > I noticed the Adobe PDF image on the bottom of the docs pages and thought > "Hmm..."; taking a quick look at > http://www.adobe.com/misc/linking.html#pdficon we're almost in > compliance, with a big "but": > > """ > The Adobe PDF file icon is provided solely as an indicator of an active > link to a Portable Document Format file with a .pdf filename extension > created using an Adobe® Acrobat® product. > """ > > Emphasis on "created using an Adobe® Acrobat® product"; as ours is not, > we shouldn't be using that icon. (Actually, the icon isn't quite the > same; ours has "Adobe" on it, which is probably worse because then we're > contravening "3. You may not alter the Adobe PDF file icon in any > manner"). > > So, a quick peek at GNOME's icons shows the "Dropline Etiquette" set at > http://art.gnome.org/download/themes/icon/1049/ICON-DroplineEtiquette.tar.bz2 > has an appropriately licensed (CC-BY-SA) icon called > /dlg-etiquette/scalable/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-pdf.svg that > might meet our needs, if we don't want to create something ourselves. > I've pushed a branch called "new_pdf_icon" to the DIG repository that > contains a replacement GIF derived from the GNOME icon; to comply with > the BY-SA license, I have included a comment in the GIF that clearly > states the provenance of the icon. > > In the spirit of "beg for forgiveness", I have gone ahead and pushed > this change to the master, rel_2_1, and rel_2_0 branches of the repo > too. This can obviously be changed later, but I thought it was important > to address this (relatively minor) licensing violation right away. > > Dan > _______________________________________________ > OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation _______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
