Well, I basically agree with Dan. Also, as Michael Peters pointed out, some oxygen icons are already in use anyway: http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=Evergreen.git;a=blob_plain;f=Open-ILS/xul/staff_client/server/skin/media/images/portal/LICENSE;h=7d6786bef98f278c68c35490759a72e8b858cecc;hb=master.
I contacted Nuno Pinheiro, who is the current coordinator of the Oxygen project for KDE. My question and his response are below: A Terça, 8 de Maio de 2012 15:04:18, você escreveu: > Hello, Nuno. > > The Evergreen Documentation Interest Group is trying to clarify licensing > for the Oxygen icons. We are considering using them for the Evergreen ILS > project (http://open-ils.org/). > > The website http://www.oxygen-icons.org/?page_id=4 lists the icon theme as > dual-licensed. In the KDE repository, the Oxygen theme is licensed only > as LGPL. Is LGPL currently the only license applicable to the Oxygen > icons? > > Thank you. > > Alexey Lazar > PALS > Information System Developer and Integrator > 507-389-2907 > http://www.mnpals.org/ yes lgpl v2 is the curreent licence, its less restrictive than the cc licence and I wont sue any one that uses oxygen :) -- Nuno Pinheiro | [email protected] | UI Designer Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB, a KDAB Group company KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-independent software solutions Alexey Lazar PALS Information System Developer and Integrator 507-389-2907 http://www.mnpals.org/ On May 8, 2012, at 08:35 , Dan Scott wrote: > Hi all: > > I'm kind of regretting bringing this up in the first place, but as I > don't think we have any copyright lawyers on either the communications > team or the oversight board, since I started this discussion, I'll take > point on tracking down an authoritative answer. > > For what it's worth, the PDF icon at > http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/KDE/kdeartwork/IconThemes/primary/scalable/mimetypes/application-pdf.svgz?view=log > is also licensed under the LGPL at > http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/KDE/kdeartwork/IconThemes/primary/LICENSE?view=markup > > For the short term, in my (I am not a lawyer and this does not > constitute legal advice) opinion, I think it should be fine to include > the KDE icon in question as long as we reproduce the license and note > the provenance of the icon. > > For example, keep the license file + icon in a separate directory and > point to the location of the icon in the KDE repository, and perhaps > note the exception in the docs themselves (which, come to think of it, > should probably have a clear "licensing" section noting that the bulk of > the content is licensed CC-BY-SA, with the exception of the LGPL icon; > there may be more exceptions in the future - note there's a whole > _other_ can of worms that arises due to our decision to license the > documentation solely under the CC-BY-SA rather than under both the > CC-BY-SA and the GPL, but we can and should discuss that separately). > > We should of course always strive for perfect compliance, but if we're > looking at this from a risk management perspective, I suspect it's not > likely that the KDE project would go after our project aggressively. > If they believed we were not in compliance with their license and > intent, they would most likely just send us a nice email. > > I'll come back with a more authoritative answer later, but I think we > can move ahead if we take this fairly cautious approach. > > Dan > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 08:39:24AM -0400, Soulliere, Robert wrote: >> >> I wonder if the Evergreen Oversight Board or Communications Committee >> could help us make the decision on the legality of using the images at >> KDE? I don't have a comfortable feeling about using it based on what I >> have read on the KDE site. However, if I get a thumbs up from the >> Evergreen Oversight Board, then I would feel at ease and would use the >> image. Since the DIG had been using a questionable image for the past >> few years, I would like to be sure about the image choice. If there is >> any doubt, then I think we need to use the current safe PDF image >> currently in place. >> >> Thanks, >> Robert >> >> >> >> Robert Soulliere, BA (Hons), MLIS >> Systems Librarian >> Mohawk College Library >> [email protected] >> Telephone: 905 575 1212 x3936 >> Fax: 905 575 2011 >> ________________________________________ >> From: [email protected] >> [[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Yamil Suarez [[email protected]] >> Sent: May 7, 2012 7:20 PM >> To: Documentation discussion for Evergreen software >> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION] PDF icon: licensing concern & fix >> >> On May 7, 2012, at 6:42 PM, Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich wrote: >> >>> Got it. This is where it's at: >>> http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/kdesupport/oxygen-icons/ >>> . There is licensing information, and various icons of various >>> sizes. The PDF icon is titled application-pdf.png and is in a >>> "mimetypes" folder for a given size. >>> >>> Alexey Lazar >>> PALS >>> Information System Developer and Integrator >>> 507-389-2907 >>> http://www.mnpals.org/ >>> >>> On May 7, 2012, at 16:15 , Yamil Suarez wrote: >>> >> >> Cool, this is getting us closer, though the copying license attached >> to the icons in that collection seems to be only "GNU Lesser General >> Public License v. 3 (LGPL)". This could be an issue since our >> documentation is CC-BY-SA and not LGPL, but I know there are some >> similarities between the two. >> >> Here is the license listed for set of icons Alexey sent in: >> http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/kdesupport/oxygen-icons/COPYING?view=markup >> >> I am just trying to play it safe, and would welcome the input from >> others more familiar with these type of licensing issues. >> >> Yamil >> _______________________________________________ >> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation >> >> This E-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended >> only for the individual or entity named in the message. If the reader >> of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible >> to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that >> any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication >> is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please >> notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy >> the original message. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
