Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[Carsten Haitzler]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 19:15:28 +0100 Davide Andreoli 
said:

> 2018-01-31 10:52 GMT+01:00 Carsten Haitzler :
> 
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:37:28 +1030 Simon Lees  said:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 31/01/18 10:39, Davide Andreoli wrote:
> > > > The fdo icons in the efl theme are indeed GPL3,
> > > > as clearly staten in COPYING.images and data/elementary/themes/fdo
> > > >
> > > > I have no idea about the contamination and the resulting theme final
> > > > license.
> > > >
> > > > For sure I want (and we must) them to remain to that license.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't understand why you wouldn't want them licensed under an
> > > equivalent creative commons license rather then GPL-3, GPL-3 is designed
> > > for source code where as creative commons is designed for images, using
> > > the wrong sort of licenses leads to the ambiguities we are seeing here,
> > > if we can't convince the upstream developers to change there isn't much
> > > we can do but its worth trying.
> >
> > we need to probably replace them with icons that are not licensed like the
> > above.
> >
> > as for contamination, that is generally considered to be true with code if
> > they
> > share the same memory space. icons on the other hand do not. they are first
> > decoded/rendered then manipulated. code from the binary is mapped directly
> > into
> > memory as-is pretty much minus relocation.
> >
> > so while i don't think DATA files would leak their license to efl, gplv3
> > does
> > create requirements of its host system (to allow any gplv3 components to be
> > replaceable by the end user) and that requires any system that would ship
> > these
> > to not be locked down. that is generally disliked by commercial vendors.
> >
> 
> Well, I expect a commercial vendor with a locked down device to at least
> provide a
> theme of their own :)


the problem is they just read "gplv3" and run away without looking at the
details most likely... :) so just having it off the list is a good thing.

> > so my take is "replace them". i could replace them anyway if the theme
> > fundamentally changed (e.g. became flat).
> >
> > > >
> > > > 2018-01-30 14:05 GMT+01:00 Jean-Philippe André :
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Simon Lees  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 30/01/18 22:20, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> > >  Hi,
> > > 
> > >  Sungtaek pointed out to me that we have GPLv3-licensed artworks
> > (unsual
> > > >>> for
> > >  images) in our theme, under data/elementary/theme/fdo. Those images
> > are
> > > >>> are
> > >  then included in the compiled theme default.edj. One source is
> > clearly
> > >  GPLv3:
> > >  https://tiheum.deviantart.com/art/Faenza-Icons-173323228
> > > 
> > >  Now I wonder what the implications of this are...
> > >  1. Does Elementary become GPL because we load the theme and it
> > contains
> > >  executable code (embryo & edje programs), so the theme is to be
> > > >>> considered
> > >  a library, contaminating everything??
> > >  2. Or only the theme itself is GPL, by contamination from those
> > images?
> > >  3. Or is the compiled theme file not GPL because we're not linking
> > or
> > >  derivating, merely archiving those images like in a Zip file, in
> > which
> > > >>> case
> > >  only what's in the tree is GPL? This would be same as HTML:
> > >  https://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/2113242/when-
> > > >>> gpl-becomes-almost-gpl-the-css-images-and-javascript-
> > > >>> loophole/informative-comments#comments
> > > 
> > >  In the FAQ I only found a mention about fonts:
> > >  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#FontException
> > >  We don't have such an exception.
> > > 
> > >  Pretty sure there is no problem (i.e. #3 is right), but IANAL so I'd
> > > >>> rather
> > >  ask away :)
> > > 
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Licence wise i've always considered themes to be separate, whether
> > that
> > > >>> is correct or not is another question. GPL with images is silly
> > anyway
> > > >>> and we really should be asking upstream to relicense with some form
> > of
> > > >>> creative commons anyway which makes far more sense, but I guess the
> > > >>> theme is probably technically GPL-3 as a binary.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Not so sure. HTML seems to be a crazy exception: An HTML file
> > containing
> > > >> GPL licensed JS code is not GPL itself. Not consistent but makes
> > sense. EDJ
> > > >> probably also falls under the category of "container".
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Probably the biggest actual real life issue is if the theme is being
> > > >>> used in consumer devices such as tizen you would need to provide
> > > >>> consumers a way to swap there stock theme for one of there choice.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Yeah that's partly why I'm asking. :)
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Jean-Philippe 

Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[Davide Andreoli]

2018-01-31 10:52 GMT+01:00 Carsten Haitzler :

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:37:28 +1030 Simon Lees  said:
>
> >
> >
> > On 31/01/18 10:39, Davide Andreoli wrote:
> > > The fdo icons in the efl theme are indeed GPL3,
> > > as clearly staten in COPYING.images and data/elementary/themes/fdo
> > >
> > > I have no idea about the contamination and the resulting theme final
> > > license.
> > >
> > > For sure I want (and we must) them to remain to that license.
> > >
> >
> > I don't understand why you wouldn't want them licensed under an
> > equivalent creative commons license rather then GPL-3, GPL-3 is designed
> > for source code where as creative commons is designed for images, using
> > the wrong sort of licenses leads to the ambiguities we are seeing here,
> > if we can't convince the upstream developers to change there isn't much
> > we can do but its worth trying.
>
> we need to probably replace them with icons that are not licensed like the
> above.
>
> as for contamination, that is generally considered to be true with code if
> they
> share the same memory space. icons on the other hand do not. they are first
> decoded/rendered then manipulated. code from the binary is mapped directly
> into
> memory as-is pretty much minus relocation.
>
> so while i don't think DATA files would leak their license to efl, gplv3
> does
> create requirements of its host system (to allow any gplv3 components to be
> replaceable by the end user) and that requires any system that would ship
> these
> to not be locked down. that is generally disliked by commercial vendors.
>

Well, I expect a commercial vendor with a locked down device to at least
provide a
theme of their own :)

>
>
> so my take is "replace them". i could replace them anyway if the theme
> fundamentally changed (e.g. became flat).
>
> > >
> > > 2018-01-30 14:05 GMT+01:00 Jean-Philippe André :
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Simon Lees  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 30/01/18 22:20, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> >  Hi,
> > 
> >  Sungtaek pointed out to me that we have GPLv3-licensed artworks
> (unsual
> > >>> for
> >  images) in our theme, under data/elementary/theme/fdo. Those images
> are
> > >>> are
> >  then included in the compiled theme default.edj. One source is
> clearly
> >  GPLv3:
> >  https://tiheum.deviantart.com/art/Faenza-Icons-173323228
> > 
> >  Now I wonder what the implications of this are...
> >  1. Does Elementary become GPL because we load the theme and it
> contains
> >  executable code (embryo & edje programs), so the theme is to be
> > >>> considered
> >  a library, contaminating everything??
> >  2. Or only the theme itself is GPL, by contamination from those
> images?
> >  3. Or is the compiled theme file not GPL because we're not linking
> or
> >  derivating, merely archiving those images like in a Zip file, in
> which
> > >>> case
> >  only what's in the tree is GPL? This would be same as HTML:
> >  https://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/2113242/when-
> > >>> gpl-becomes-almost-gpl-the-css-images-and-javascript-
> > >>> loophole/informative-comments#comments
> > 
> >  In the FAQ I only found a mention about fonts:
> >  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#FontException
> >  We don't have such an exception.
> > 
> >  Pretty sure there is no problem (i.e. #3 is right), but IANAL so I'd
> > >>> rather
> >  ask away :)
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>> Licence wise i've always considered themes to be separate, whether
> that
> > >>> is correct or not is another question. GPL with images is silly
> anyway
> > >>> and we really should be asking upstream to relicense with some form
> of
> > >>> creative commons anyway which makes far more sense, but I guess the
> > >>> theme is probably technically GPL-3 as a binary.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Not so sure. HTML seems to be a crazy exception: An HTML file
> containing
> > >> GPL licensed JS code is not GPL itself. Not consistent but makes
> sense. EDJ
> > >> probably also falls under the category of "container".
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Probably the biggest actual real life issue is if the theme is being
> > >>> used in consumer devices such as tizen you would need to provide
> > >>> consumers a way to swap there stock theme for one of there choice.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Yeah that's partly why I'm asking. :)
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Jean-Philippe André
> > >> 
> > >> --
> > >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > >> ___
> > >> enlightenment-devel mailing list
> > >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
> > >>
> > > 

Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[Davide Andreoli]

2018-01-31 16:32 GMT+01:00 Carsten Haitzler :

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:36:17 +0100 Davide Andreoli  >
> said:
>
> > 2018-01-31 10:52 GMT+01:00 Carsten Haitzler :
> >
> > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:37:28 +1030 Simon Lees  said:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 31/01/18 10:39, Davide Andreoli wrote:
> > > > > The fdo icons in the efl theme are indeed GPL3,
> > > > > as clearly staten in COPYING.images and data/elementary/themes/fdo
> > > > >
> > > > > I have no idea about the contamination and the resulting theme
> final
> > > > > license.
> > > > >
> > > > > For sure I want (and we must) them to remain to that license.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand why you wouldn't want them licensed under an
> > > > equivalent creative commons license rather then GPL-3, GPL-3 is
> designed
> > > > for source code where as creative commons is designed for images,
> using
> > > > the wrong sort of licenses leads to the ambiguities we are seeing
> here,
> > > > if we can't convince the upstream developers to change there isn't
> much
> > > > we can do but its worth trying.
> > >
> > > we need to probably replace them with icons that are not licensed like
> the
> > > above.
> > >
> > > as for contamination, that is generally considered to be true with
> code if
> > > they
> > > share the same memory space. icons on the other hand do not. they are
> first
> > > decoded/rendered then manipulated. code from the binary is mapped
> directly
> > > into
> > > memory as-is pretty much minus relocation.
> > >
> > > so while i don't think DATA files would leak their license to efl,
> gplv3
> > > does
> > > create requirements of its host system (to allow any gplv3 components
> to be
> > > replaceable by the end user) and that requires any system that would
> ship
> > > these
> > > to not be locked down. that is generally disliked by commercial
> vendors.
> > >
> > > so my take is "replace them". i could replace them anyway if the theme
> > > fundamentally changed (e.g. became flat).
> > >
> >
> > Did you see how many fdo icons are there? I don't think we have the
> manpower
> > to redesign all of them.
>
> replace may mean replacing with an icon set that has a better license... :)
>

The majority of the fdo icons we have now are not just a copy of another
theme,
I draw them one by one starting from the svg shapes of various themes. They
are recolored, flattened and some fully redrawn. All that took to me
something
like a month of nightly work and I'm not sure we can find a theme that match
the E theme so closely, but I'm open to suggestions :)


>
> > > > > 2018-01-30 14:05 GMT+01:00 Jean-Philippe André  >:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Simon Lees 
> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 30/01/18 22:20, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> > > >  Hi,
> > > > 
> > > >  Sungtaek pointed out to me that we have GPLv3-licensed artworks
> > > (unsual
> > > > >>> for
> > > >  images) in our theme, under data/elementary/theme/fdo. Those
> images
> > > are
> > > > >>> are
> > > >  then included in the compiled theme default.edj. One source is
> > > clearly
> > > >  GPLv3:
> > > >  https://tiheum.deviantart.com/art/Faenza-Icons-173323228
> > > > 
> > > >  Now I wonder what the implications of this are...
> > > >  1. Does Elementary become GPL because we load the theme and it
> > > contains
> > > >  executable code (embryo & edje programs), so the theme is to be
> > > > >>> considered
> > > >  a library, contaminating everything??
> > > >  2. Or only the theme itself is GPL, by contamination from those
> > > images?
> > > >  3. Or is the compiled theme file not GPL because we're not
> linking
> > > or
> > > >  derivating, merely archiving those images like in a Zip file, in
> > > which
> > > > >>> case
> > > >  only what's in the tree is GPL? This would be same as HTML:
> > > >  https://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/2113242/when-
> > > > >>> gpl-becomes-almost-gpl-the-css-images-and-javascript-
> > > > >>> loophole/informative-comments#comments
> > > > 
> > > >  In the FAQ I only found a mention about fonts:
> > > >  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#FontException
> > > >  We don't have such an exception.
> > > > 
> > > >  Pretty sure there is no problem (i.e. #3 is right), but IANAL
> so I'd
> > > > >>> rather
> > > >  ask away :)
> > > > 
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Licence wise i've always considered themes to be separate,
> whether
> > > that
> > > > >>> is correct or not is another question. GPL with images is silly
> > > anyway
> > > > >>> and we really should be asking upstream to relicense with some
> form
> > > of
> > > > >>> creative commons anyway which makes far more sense, but I guess
> the
> > > > >>> theme is probably technically GPL-3 as a binary.
> > > > 

Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 00:33:01 +0900
Carsten Haitzler  wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:42:13 + Al Poole  said:
> 
> > Worst scenario we could pay the author???  
> 
> just choose a different icon theme with better licensing... :)

What about Oxygen from KDE, LGPL may work?
https://techbase.kde.org/Projects/Oxygen/Licensing#Use_in_Applications

Long as it is not bundled in a binary, edj file. Seems a fair amount
end up in /usr/share/icons/Enlightenment-X. Which would make them
separate PNG files loaded at runtime so would not taint or violate
license.

I personally like and use them. Mostly because they have a wide range
of icons, and good MIME support. You can see them in use with my theme
Eminence. I used them with the default theme as well. The main file icon
is blue so I think it goes along with the rest of the blue base of E.
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/12835340/28030854-6c079512-6573-11e7-8851-8311662ec359.jpg

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[Carsten Haitzler]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:42:13 + Al Poole  said:

> Worst scenario we could pay the author???

just choose a different icon theme with better licensing... :)

> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Davide Andreoli 
> wrote:
> > 2018-01-31 10:52 GMT+01:00 Carsten Haitzler :
> >
> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:37:28 +1030 Simon Lees  said:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 31/01/18 10:39, Davide Andreoli wrote:
> >> > > The fdo icons in the efl theme are indeed GPL3,
> >> > > as clearly staten in COPYING.images and data/elementary/themes/fdo
> >> > >
> >> > > I have no idea about the contamination and the resulting theme final
> >> > > license.
> >> > >
> >> > > For sure I want (and we must) them to remain to that license.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I don't understand why you wouldn't want them licensed under an
> >> > equivalent creative commons license rather then GPL-3, GPL-3 is designed
> >> > for source code where as creative commons is designed for images, using
> >> > the wrong sort of licenses leads to the ambiguities we are seeing here,
> >> > if we can't convince the upstream developers to change there isn't much
> >> > we can do but its worth trying.
> >>
> >> we need to probably replace them with icons that are not licensed like the
> >> above.
> >>
> >> as for contamination, that is generally considered to be true with code if
> >> they
> >> share the same memory space. icons on the other hand do not. they are first
> >> decoded/rendered then manipulated. code from the binary is mapped directly
> >> into
> >> memory as-is pretty much minus relocation.
> >>
> >> so while i don't think DATA files would leak their license to efl, gplv3
> >> does
> >> create requirements of its host system (to allow any gplv3 components to be
> >> replaceable by the end user) and that requires any system that would ship
> >> these
> >> to not be locked down. that is generally disliked by commercial vendors.
> >>
> >> so my take is "replace them". i could replace them anyway if the theme
> >> fundamentally changed (e.g. became flat).
> >>
> >
> > Did you see how many fdo icons are there? I don't think we have the manpower
> > to redesign all of them.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > 2018-01-30 14:05 GMT+01:00 Jean-Philippe André :
> >> > >
> >> > >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Simon Lees  wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> On 30/01/18 22:20, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> >> >  Hi,
> >> > 
> >> >  Sungtaek pointed out to me that we have GPLv3-licensed artworks
> >> (unsual
> >> > >>> for
> >> >  images) in our theme, under data/elementary/theme/fdo. Those images
> >> are
> >> > >>> are
> >> >  then included in the compiled theme default.edj. One source is
> >> clearly
> >> >  GPLv3:
> >> >  https://tiheum.deviantart.com/art/Faenza-Icons-173323228
> >> > 
> >> >  Now I wonder what the implications of this are...
> >> >  1. Does Elementary become GPL because we load the theme and it
> >> contains
> >> >  executable code (embryo & edje programs), so the theme is to be
> >> > >>> considered
> >> >  a library, contaminating everything??
> >> >  2. Or only the theme itself is GPL, by contamination from those
> >> images?
> >> >  3. Or is the compiled theme file not GPL because we're not linking
> >> or
> >> >  derivating, merely archiving those images like in a Zip file, in
> >> which
> >> > >>> case
> >> >  only what's in the tree is GPL? This would be same as HTML:
> >> >  https://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/2113242/when-
> >> > >>> gpl-becomes-almost-gpl-the-css-images-and-javascript-
> >> > >>> loophole/informative-comments#comments
> >> > 
> >> >  In the FAQ I only found a mention about fonts:
> >> >  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#FontException
> >> >  We don't have such an exception.
> >> > 
> >> >  Pretty sure there is no problem (i.e. #3 is right), but IANAL so I'd
> >> > >>> rather
> >> >  ask away :)
> >> > 
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Licence wise i've always considered themes to be separate, whether
> >> that
> >> > >>> is correct or not is another question. GPL with images is silly
> >> anyway
> >> > >>> and we really should be asking upstream to relicense with some form
> >> of
> >> > >>> creative commons anyway which makes far more sense, but I guess the
> >> > >>> theme is probably technically GPL-3 as a binary.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Not so sure. HTML seems to be a crazy exception: An HTML file
> >> containing
> >> > >> GPL licensed JS code is not GPL itself. Not consistent but makes
> >> sense. EDJ
> >> > >> probably also falls under the category of "container".
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Probably the biggest actual real life issue is if the theme is being
> >> > >>> used in consumer devices such as tizen you would need to provide
> >> > >>> consumers a way to swap 

Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[Carsten Haitzler]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:36:17 +0100 Davide Andreoli 
said:

> 2018-01-31 10:52 GMT+01:00 Carsten Haitzler :
> 
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:37:28 +1030 Simon Lees  said:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 31/01/18 10:39, Davide Andreoli wrote:
> > > > The fdo icons in the efl theme are indeed GPL3,
> > > > as clearly staten in COPYING.images and data/elementary/themes/fdo
> > > >
> > > > I have no idea about the contamination and the resulting theme final
> > > > license.
> > > >
> > > > For sure I want (and we must) them to remain to that license.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't understand why you wouldn't want them licensed under an
> > > equivalent creative commons license rather then GPL-3, GPL-3 is designed
> > > for source code where as creative commons is designed for images, using
> > > the wrong sort of licenses leads to the ambiguities we are seeing here,
> > > if we can't convince the upstream developers to change there isn't much
> > > we can do but its worth trying.
> >
> > we need to probably replace them with icons that are not licensed like the
> > above.
> >
> > as for contamination, that is generally considered to be true with code if
> > they
> > share the same memory space. icons on the other hand do not. they are first
> > decoded/rendered then manipulated. code from the binary is mapped directly
> > into
> > memory as-is pretty much minus relocation.
> >
> > so while i don't think DATA files would leak their license to efl, gplv3
> > does
> > create requirements of its host system (to allow any gplv3 components to be
> > replaceable by the end user) and that requires any system that would ship
> > these
> > to not be locked down. that is generally disliked by commercial vendors.
> >
> > so my take is "replace them". i could replace them anyway if the theme
> > fundamentally changed (e.g. became flat).
> >
> 
> Did you see how many fdo icons are there? I don't think we have the manpower
> to redesign all of them.

replace may mean replacing with an icon set that has a better license... :)

> > > > 2018-01-30 14:05 GMT+01:00 Jean-Philippe André :
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Simon Lees  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 30/01/18 22:20, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> > >  Hi,
> > > 
> > >  Sungtaek pointed out to me that we have GPLv3-licensed artworks
> > (unsual
> > > >>> for
> > >  images) in our theme, under data/elementary/theme/fdo. Those images
> > are
> > > >>> are
> > >  then included in the compiled theme default.edj. One source is
> > clearly
> > >  GPLv3:
> > >  https://tiheum.deviantart.com/art/Faenza-Icons-173323228
> > > 
> > >  Now I wonder what the implications of this are...
> > >  1. Does Elementary become GPL because we load the theme and it
> > contains
> > >  executable code (embryo & edje programs), so the theme is to be
> > > >>> considered
> > >  a library, contaminating everything??
> > >  2. Or only the theme itself is GPL, by contamination from those
> > images?
> > >  3. Or is the compiled theme file not GPL because we're not linking
> > or
> > >  derivating, merely archiving those images like in a Zip file, in
> > which
> > > >>> case
> > >  only what's in the tree is GPL? This would be same as HTML:
> > >  https://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/2113242/when-
> > > >>> gpl-becomes-almost-gpl-the-css-images-and-javascript-
> > > >>> loophole/informative-comments#comments
> > > 
> > >  In the FAQ I only found a mention about fonts:
> > >  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#FontException
> > >  We don't have such an exception.
> > > 
> > >  Pretty sure there is no problem (i.e. #3 is right), but IANAL so I'd
> > > >>> rather
> > >  ask away :)
> > > 
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Licence wise i've always considered themes to be separate, whether
> > that
> > > >>> is correct or not is another question. GPL with images is silly
> > anyway
> > > >>> and we really should be asking upstream to relicense with some form
> > of
> > > >>> creative commons anyway which makes far more sense, but I guess the
> > > >>> theme is probably technically GPL-3 as a binary.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Not so sure. HTML seems to be a crazy exception: An HTML file
> > containing
> > > >> GPL licensed JS code is not GPL itself. Not consistent but makes
> > sense. EDJ
> > > >> probably also falls under the category of "container".
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Probably the biggest actual real life issue is if the theme is being
> > > >>> used in consumer devices such as tizen you would need to provide
> > > >>> consumers a way to swap there stock theme for one of there choice.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Yeah that's partly why I'm asking. :)
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Jean-Philippe André
> > > >> 
> > > >> 

Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[Al Poole]

Worst scenario we could pay the author???

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Davide Andreoli  wrote:
> 2018-01-31 10:52 GMT+01:00 Carsten Haitzler :
>
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:37:28 +1030 Simon Lees  said:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On 31/01/18 10:39, Davide Andreoli wrote:
>> > > The fdo icons in the efl theme are indeed GPL3,
>> > > as clearly staten in COPYING.images and data/elementary/themes/fdo
>> > >
>> > > I have no idea about the contamination and the resulting theme final
>> > > license.
>> > >
>> > > For sure I want (and we must) them to remain to that license.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I don't understand why you wouldn't want them licensed under an
>> > equivalent creative commons license rather then GPL-3, GPL-3 is designed
>> > for source code where as creative commons is designed for images, using
>> > the wrong sort of licenses leads to the ambiguities we are seeing here,
>> > if we can't convince the upstream developers to change there isn't much
>> > we can do but its worth trying.
>>
>> we need to probably replace them with icons that are not licensed like the
>> above.
>>
>> as for contamination, that is generally considered to be true with code if
>> they
>> share the same memory space. icons on the other hand do not. they are first
>> decoded/rendered then manipulated. code from the binary is mapped directly
>> into
>> memory as-is pretty much minus relocation.
>>
>> so while i don't think DATA files would leak their license to efl, gplv3
>> does
>> create requirements of its host system (to allow any gplv3 components to be
>> replaceable by the end user) and that requires any system that would ship
>> these
>> to not be locked down. that is generally disliked by commercial vendors.
>>
>> so my take is "replace them". i could replace them anyway if the theme
>> fundamentally changed (e.g. became flat).
>>
>
> Did you see how many fdo icons are there? I don't think we have the manpower
> to redesign all of them.
>
>
>>
>> > >
>> > > 2018-01-30 14:05 GMT+01:00 Jean-Philippe André :
>> > >
>> > >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Simon Lees  wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On 30/01/18 22:20, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
>> >  Hi,
>> > 
>> >  Sungtaek pointed out to me that we have GPLv3-licensed artworks
>> (unsual
>> > >>> for
>> >  images) in our theme, under data/elementary/theme/fdo. Those images
>> are
>> > >>> are
>> >  then included in the compiled theme default.edj. One source is
>> clearly
>> >  GPLv3:
>> >  https://tiheum.deviantart.com/art/Faenza-Icons-173323228
>> > 
>> >  Now I wonder what the implications of this are...
>> >  1. Does Elementary become GPL because we load the theme and it
>> contains
>> >  executable code (embryo & edje programs), so the theme is to be
>> > >>> considered
>> >  a library, contaminating everything??
>> >  2. Or only the theme itself is GPL, by contamination from those
>> images?
>> >  3. Or is the compiled theme file not GPL because we're not linking
>> or
>> >  derivating, merely archiving those images like in a Zip file, in
>> which
>> > >>> case
>> >  only what's in the tree is GPL? This would be same as HTML:
>> >  https://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/2113242/when-
>> > >>> gpl-becomes-almost-gpl-the-css-images-and-javascript-
>> > >>> loophole/informative-comments#comments
>> > 
>> >  In the FAQ I only found a mention about fonts:
>> >  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#FontException
>> >  We don't have such an exception.
>> > 
>> >  Pretty sure there is no problem (i.e. #3 is right), but IANAL so I'd
>> > >>> rather
>> >  ask away :)
>> > 
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Licence wise i've always considered themes to be separate, whether
>> that
>> > >>> is correct or not is another question. GPL with images is silly
>> anyway
>> > >>> and we really should be asking upstream to relicense with some form
>> of
>> > >>> creative commons anyway which makes far more sense, but I guess the
>> > >>> theme is probably technically GPL-3 as a binary.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Not so sure. HTML seems to be a crazy exception: An HTML file
>> containing
>> > >> GPL licensed JS code is not GPL itself. Not consistent but makes
>> sense. EDJ
>> > >> probably also falls under the category of "container".
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> Probably the biggest actual real life issue is if the theme is being
>> > >>> used in consumer devices such as tizen you would need to provide
>> > >>> consumers a way to swap there stock theme for one of there choice.
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >> Yeah that's partly why I'm asking. :)
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Jean-Philippe André
>> > >> 
>> > >> --
>> > >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! 

Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[Davide Andreoli]

2018-01-31 10:52 GMT+01:00 Carsten Haitzler :

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:37:28 +1030 Simon Lees  said:
>
> >
> >
> > On 31/01/18 10:39, Davide Andreoli wrote:
> > > The fdo icons in the efl theme are indeed GPL3,
> > > as clearly staten in COPYING.images and data/elementary/themes/fdo
> > >
> > > I have no idea about the contamination and the resulting theme final
> > > license.
> > >
> > > For sure I want (and we must) them to remain to that license.
> > >
> >
> > I don't understand why you wouldn't want them licensed under an
> > equivalent creative commons license rather then GPL-3, GPL-3 is designed
> > for source code where as creative commons is designed for images, using
> > the wrong sort of licenses leads to the ambiguities we are seeing here,
> > if we can't convince the upstream developers to change there isn't much
> > we can do but its worth trying.
>
> we need to probably replace them with icons that are not licensed like the
> above.
>
> as for contamination, that is generally considered to be true with code if
> they
> share the same memory space. icons on the other hand do not. they are first
> decoded/rendered then manipulated. code from the binary is mapped directly
> into
> memory as-is pretty much minus relocation.
>
> so while i don't think DATA files would leak their license to efl, gplv3
> does
> create requirements of its host system (to allow any gplv3 components to be
> replaceable by the end user) and that requires any system that would ship
> these
> to not be locked down. that is generally disliked by commercial vendors.
>
> so my take is "replace them". i could replace them anyway if the theme
> fundamentally changed (e.g. became flat).
>

Did you see how many fdo icons are there? I don't think we have the manpower
to redesign all of them.


>
> > >
> > > 2018-01-30 14:05 GMT+01:00 Jean-Philippe André :
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Simon Lees  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 30/01/18 22:20, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> >  Hi,
> > 
> >  Sungtaek pointed out to me that we have GPLv3-licensed artworks
> (unsual
> > >>> for
> >  images) in our theme, under data/elementary/theme/fdo. Those images
> are
> > >>> are
> >  then included in the compiled theme default.edj. One source is
> clearly
> >  GPLv3:
> >  https://tiheum.deviantart.com/art/Faenza-Icons-173323228
> > 
> >  Now I wonder what the implications of this are...
> >  1. Does Elementary become GPL because we load the theme and it
> contains
> >  executable code (embryo & edje programs), so the theme is to be
> > >>> considered
> >  a library, contaminating everything??
> >  2. Or only the theme itself is GPL, by contamination from those
> images?
> >  3. Or is the compiled theme file not GPL because we're not linking
> or
> >  derivating, merely archiving those images like in a Zip file, in
> which
> > >>> case
> >  only what's in the tree is GPL? This would be same as HTML:
> >  https://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/2113242/when-
> > >>> gpl-becomes-almost-gpl-the-css-images-and-javascript-
> > >>> loophole/informative-comments#comments
> > 
> >  In the FAQ I only found a mention about fonts:
> >  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#FontException
> >  We don't have such an exception.
> > 
> >  Pretty sure there is no problem (i.e. #3 is right), but IANAL so I'd
> > >>> rather
> >  ask away :)
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>> Licence wise i've always considered themes to be separate, whether
> that
> > >>> is correct or not is another question. GPL with images is silly
> anyway
> > >>> and we really should be asking upstream to relicense with some form
> of
> > >>> creative commons anyway which makes far more sense, but I guess the
> > >>> theme is probably technically GPL-3 as a binary.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Not so sure. HTML seems to be a crazy exception: An HTML file
> containing
> > >> GPL licensed JS code is not GPL itself. Not consistent but makes
> sense. EDJ
> > >> probably also falls under the category of "container".
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Probably the biggest actual real life issue is if the theme is being
> > >>> used in consumer devices such as tizen you would need to provide
> > >>> consumers a way to swap there stock theme for one of there choice.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Yeah that's partly why I'm asking. :)
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Jean-Philippe André
> > >> 
> > >> --
> > >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > >> ___
> > >> enlightenment-devel mailing list
> > >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
> > >>
> > > 

Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[Davide Andreoli]

2018-01-31 10:52 GMT+01:00 Carsten Haitzler :

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:37:28 +1030 Simon Lees  said:
>
> >
> >
> > On 31/01/18 10:39, Davide Andreoli wrote:
> > > The fdo icons in the efl theme are indeed GPL3,
> > > as clearly staten in COPYING.images and data/elementary/themes/fdo
> > >
> > > I have no idea about the contamination and the resulting theme final
> > > license.
> > >
> > > For sure I want (and we must) them to remain to that license.
> > >
> >
> > I don't understand why you wouldn't want them licensed under an
> > equivalent creative commons license rather then GPL-3, GPL-3 is designed
> > for source code where as creative commons is designed for images, using
> > the wrong sort of licenses leads to the ambiguities we are seeing here,
> > if we can't convince the upstream developers to change there isn't much
> > we can do but its worth trying.
>

Just because I don't know well the various CC licenses :) sorry, indeed my
reply was a bit too rough. My main concern was that It seems to me quite
impossible  to convince all the upstream licenser to change their licenses.


>
> we need to probably replace them with icons that are not licensed like the
> above.
>
> as for contamination, that is generally considered to be true with code if
> they
> share the same memory space. icons on the other hand do not. they are first
> decoded/rendered then manipulated. code from the binary is mapped directly
> into
> memory as-is pretty much minus relocation.
>
> so while i don't think DATA files would leak their license to efl, gplv3
> does
> create requirements of its host system (to allow any gplv3 components to be
> replaceable by the end user) and that requires any system that would ship
> these
> to not be locked down. that is generally disliked by commercial vendors.
>
> so my take is "replace them". i could replace them anyway if the theme
> fundamentally changed (e.g. became flat).
>
> > >
> > > 2018-01-30 14:05 GMT+01:00 Jean-Philippe André :
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Simon Lees  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 30/01/18 22:20, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> >  Hi,
> > 
> >  Sungtaek pointed out to me that we have GPLv3-licensed artworks
> (unsual
> > >>> for
> >  images) in our theme, under data/elementary/theme/fdo. Those images
> are
> > >>> are
> >  then included in the compiled theme default.edj. One source is
> clearly
> >  GPLv3:
> >  https://tiheum.deviantart.com/art/Faenza-Icons-173323228
> > 
> >  Now I wonder what the implications of this are...
> >  1. Does Elementary become GPL because we load the theme and it
> contains
> >  executable code (embryo & edje programs), so the theme is to be
> > >>> considered
> >  a library, contaminating everything??
> >  2. Or only the theme itself is GPL, by contamination from those
> images?
> >  3. Or is the compiled theme file not GPL because we're not linking
> or
> >  derivating, merely archiving those images like in a Zip file, in
> which
> > >>> case
> >  only what's in the tree is GPL? This would be same as HTML:
> >  https://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/2113242/when-
> > >>> gpl-becomes-almost-gpl-the-css-images-and-javascript-
> > >>> loophole/informative-comments#comments
> > 
> >  In the FAQ I only found a mention about fonts:
> >  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#FontException
> >  We don't have such an exception.
> > 
> >  Pretty sure there is no problem (i.e. #3 is right), but IANAL so I'd
> > >>> rather
> >  ask away :)
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>> Licence wise i've always considered themes to be separate, whether
> that
> > >>> is correct or not is another question. GPL with images is silly
> anyway
> > >>> and we really should be asking upstream to relicense with some form
> of
> > >>> creative commons anyway which makes far more sense, but I guess the
> > >>> theme is probably technically GPL-3 as a binary.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Not so sure. HTML seems to be a crazy exception: An HTML file
> containing
> > >> GPL licensed JS code is not GPL itself. Not consistent but makes
> sense. EDJ
> > >> probably also falls under the category of "container".
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Probably the biggest actual real life issue is if the theme is being
> > >>> used in consumer devices such as tizen you would need to provide
> > >>> consumers a way to swap there stock theme for one of there choice.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Yeah that's partly why I'm asking. :)
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Jean-Philippe André
> > >> 
> > >> --
> > >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > >> ___
> > >> enlightenment-devel mailing list
> > >> 

Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[Carsten Haitzler]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:37:28 +1030 Simon Lees  said:

> 
> 
> On 31/01/18 10:39, Davide Andreoli wrote:
> > The fdo icons in the efl theme are indeed GPL3,
> > as clearly staten in COPYING.images and data/elementary/themes/fdo
> > 
> > I have no idea about the contamination and the resulting theme final
> > license.
> > 
> > For sure I want (and we must) them to remain to that license.
> > 
> 
> I don't understand why you wouldn't want them licensed under an
> equivalent creative commons license rather then GPL-3, GPL-3 is designed
> for source code where as creative commons is designed for images, using
> the wrong sort of licenses leads to the ambiguities we are seeing here,
> if we can't convince the upstream developers to change there isn't much
> we can do but its worth trying.

we need to probably replace them with icons that are not licensed like the
above.

as for contamination, that is generally considered to be true with code if they
share the same memory space. icons on the other hand do not. they are first
decoded/rendered then manipulated. code from the binary is mapped directly into
memory as-is pretty much minus relocation.

so while i don't think DATA files would leak their license to efl, gplv3 does
create requirements of its host system (to allow any gplv3 components to be
replaceable by the end user) and that requires any system that would ship these
to not be locked down. that is generally disliked by commercial vendors.

so my take is "replace them". i could replace them anyway if the theme
fundamentally changed (e.g. became flat).

> > 
> > 2018-01-30 14:05 GMT+01:00 Jean-Philippe André :
> > 
> >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Simon Lees  wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 30/01/18 22:20, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
>  Hi,
> 
>  Sungtaek pointed out to me that we have GPLv3-licensed artworks (unsual
> >>> for
>  images) in our theme, under data/elementary/theme/fdo. Those images are
> >>> are
>  then included in the compiled theme default.edj. One source is clearly
>  GPLv3:
>  https://tiheum.deviantart.com/art/Faenza-Icons-173323228
> 
>  Now I wonder what the implications of this are...
>  1. Does Elementary become GPL because we load the theme and it contains
>  executable code (embryo & edje programs), so the theme is to be
> >>> considered
>  a library, contaminating everything??
>  2. Or only the theme itself is GPL, by contamination from those images?
>  3. Or is the compiled theme file not GPL because we're not linking or
>  derivating, merely archiving those images like in a Zip file, in which
> >>> case
>  only what's in the tree is GPL? This would be same as HTML:
>  https://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/2113242/when-
> >>> gpl-becomes-almost-gpl-the-css-images-and-javascript-
> >>> loophole/informative-comments#comments
> 
>  In the FAQ I only found a mention about fonts:
>  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#FontException
>  We don't have such an exception.
> 
>  Pretty sure there is no problem (i.e. #3 is right), but IANAL so I'd
> >>> rather
>  ask away :)
> 
> >>>
> >>> Licence wise i've always considered themes to be separate, whether that
> >>> is correct or not is another question. GPL with images is silly anyway
> >>> and we really should be asking upstream to relicense with some form of
> >>> creative commons anyway which makes far more sense, but I guess the
> >>> theme is probably technically GPL-3 as a binary.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not so sure. HTML seems to be a crazy exception: An HTML file containing
> >> GPL licensed JS code is not GPL itself. Not consistent but makes sense. EDJ
> >> probably also falls under the category of "container".
> >>
> >>
> >>> Probably the biggest actual real life issue is if the theme is being
> >>> used in consumer devices such as tizen you would need to provide
> >>> consumers a way to swap there stock theme for one of there choice.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yeah that's partly why I'm asking. :)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jean-Philippe André
> >> 
> >> --
> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> >> ___
> >> enlightenment-devel mailing list
> >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
> >>
> > --
> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > ___
> > enlightenment-devel mailing list
> > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
> > 
> 
> 

Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[Simon Lees]

On 31/01/18 10:39, Davide Andreoli wrote:
> The fdo icons in the efl theme are indeed GPL3,
> as clearly staten in COPYING.images and data/elementary/themes/fdo
> 
> I have no idea about the contamination and the resulting theme final
> license.
> 
> For sure I want (and we must) them to remain to that license.
> 

I don't understand why you wouldn't want them licensed under an
equivalent creative commons license rather then GPL-3, GPL-3 is designed
for source code where as creative commons is designed for images, using
the wrong sort of licenses leads to the ambiguities we are seeing here,
if we can't convince the upstream developers to change there isn't much
we can do but its worth trying.

> 
> 
> 2018-01-30 14:05 GMT+01:00 Jean-Philippe André :
> 
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Simon Lees  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30/01/18 22:20, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
 Hi,

 Sungtaek pointed out to me that we have GPLv3-licensed artworks (unsual
>>> for
 images) in our theme, under data/elementary/theme/fdo. Those images are
>>> are
 then included in the compiled theme default.edj. One source is clearly
 GPLv3:
 https://tiheum.deviantart.com/art/Faenza-Icons-173323228

 Now I wonder what the implications of this are...
 1. Does Elementary become GPL because we load the theme and it contains
 executable code (embryo & edje programs), so the theme is to be
>>> considered
 a library, contaminating everything??
 2. Or only the theme itself is GPL, by contamination from those images?
 3. Or is the compiled theme file not GPL because we're not linking or
 derivating, merely archiving those images like in a Zip file, in which
>>> case
 only what's in the tree is GPL? This would be same as HTML:
 https://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/2113242/when-
>>> gpl-becomes-almost-gpl-the-css-images-and-javascript-
>>> loophole/informative-comments#comments

 In the FAQ I only found a mention about fonts:
 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#FontException
 We don't have such an exception.

 Pretty sure there is no problem (i.e. #3 is right), but IANAL so I'd
>>> rather
 ask away :)

>>>
>>> Licence wise i've always considered themes to be separate, whether that
>>> is correct or not is another question. GPL with images is silly anyway
>>> and we really should be asking upstream to relicense with some form of
>>> creative commons anyway which makes far more sense, but I guess the
>>> theme is probably technically GPL-3 as a binary.
>>
>>
>> Not so sure. HTML seems to be a crazy exception: An HTML file containing
>> GPL licensed JS code is not GPL itself. Not consistent but makes sense. EDJ
>> probably also falls under the category of "container".
>>
>>
>>> Probably the biggest actual real life issue is if the theme is being
>>> used in consumer devices such as tizen you would need to provide
>>> consumers a way to swap there stock theme for one of there choice.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah that's partly why I'm asking. :)
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Philippe André
>> 
>> --
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> ___
>> enlightenment-devel mailing list
>> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
>>
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> enlightenment-devel mailing list
> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
> 

-- 

Simon Lees (Simotek)http://simotek.net

Emergency Update Team   keybase.io/simotek
SUSE Linux   Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[Davide Andreoli]

The fdo icons in the efl theme are indeed GPL3,
as clearly staten in COPYING.images and data/elementary/themes/fdo

I have no idea about the contamination and the resulting theme final
license.

For sure I want (and we must) them to remain to that license.



2018-01-30 14:05 GMT+01:00 Jean-Philippe André :

> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Simon Lees  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 30/01/18 22:20, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Sungtaek pointed out to me that we have GPLv3-licensed artworks (unsual
> > for
> > > images) in our theme, under data/elementary/theme/fdo. Those images are
> > are
> > > then included in the compiled theme default.edj. One source is clearly
> > > GPLv3:
> > > https://tiheum.deviantart.com/art/Faenza-Icons-173323228
> > >
> > > Now I wonder what the implications of this are...
> > > 1. Does Elementary become GPL because we load the theme and it contains
> > > executable code (embryo & edje programs), so the theme is to be
> > considered
> > > a library, contaminating everything??
> > > 2. Or only the theme itself is GPL, by contamination from those images?
> > > 3. Or is the compiled theme file not GPL because we're not linking or
> > > derivating, merely archiving those images like in a Zip file, in which
> > case
> > > only what's in the tree is GPL? This would be same as HTML:
> > > https://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/2113242/when-
> > gpl-becomes-almost-gpl-the-css-images-and-javascript-
> > loophole/informative-comments#comments
> > >
> > > In the FAQ I only found a mention about fonts:
> > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#FontException
> > > We don't have such an exception.
> > >
> > > Pretty sure there is no problem (i.e. #3 is right), but IANAL so I'd
> > rather
> > > ask away :)
> > >
> >
> > Licence wise i've always considered themes to be separate, whether that
> > is correct or not is another question. GPL with images is silly anyway
> > and we really should be asking upstream to relicense with some form of
> > creative commons anyway which makes far more sense, but I guess the
> > theme is probably technically GPL-3 as a binary.
>
>
> Not so sure. HTML seems to be a crazy exception: An HTML file containing
> GPL licensed JS code is not GPL itself. Not consistent but makes sense. EDJ
> probably also falls under the category of "container".
>
>
> > Probably the biggest actual real life issue is if the theme is being
> > used in consumer devices such as tizen you would need to provide
> > consumers a way to swap there stock theme for one of there choice.
> >
>
> Yeah that's partly why I'm asking. :)
>
> --
> Jean-Philippe André
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> enlightenment-devel mailing list
> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[Jean-Philippe André]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Simon Lees  wrote:

>
>
> On 30/01/18 22:20, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sungtaek pointed out to me that we have GPLv3-licensed artworks (unsual
> for
> > images) in our theme, under data/elementary/theme/fdo. Those images are
> are
> > then included in the compiled theme default.edj. One source is clearly
> > GPLv3:
> > https://tiheum.deviantart.com/art/Faenza-Icons-173323228
> >
> > Now I wonder what the implications of this are...
> > 1. Does Elementary become GPL because we load the theme and it contains
> > executable code (embryo & edje programs), so the theme is to be
> considered
> > a library, contaminating everything??
> > 2. Or only the theme itself is GPL, by contamination from those images?
> > 3. Or is the compiled theme file not GPL because we're not linking or
> > derivating, merely archiving those images like in a Zip file, in which
> case
> > only what's in the tree is GPL? This would be same as HTML:
> > https://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/2113242/when-
> gpl-becomes-almost-gpl-the-css-images-and-javascript-
> loophole/informative-comments#comments
> >
> > In the FAQ I only found a mention about fonts:
> > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#FontException
> > We don't have such an exception.
> >
> > Pretty sure there is no problem (i.e. #3 is right), but IANAL so I'd
> rather
> > ask away :)
> >
>
> Licence wise i've always considered themes to be separate, whether that
> is correct or not is another question. GPL with images is silly anyway
> and we really should be asking upstream to relicense with some form of
> creative commons anyway which makes far more sense, but I guess the
> theme is probably technically GPL-3 as a binary.


Not so sure. HTML seems to be a crazy exception: An HTML file containing
GPL licensed JS code is not GPL itself. Not consistent but makes sense. EDJ
probably also falls under the category of "container".


> Probably the biggest actual real life issue is if the theme is being
> used in consumer devices such as tizen you would need to provide
> consumers a way to swap there stock theme for one of there choice.
>

Yeah that's partly why I'm asking. :)

-- 
Jean-Philippe André
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] GPL icons in theme

[Simon Lees]

On 30/01/18 22:20, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sungtaek pointed out to me that we have GPLv3-licensed artworks (unsual for
> images) in our theme, under data/elementary/theme/fdo. Those images are are
> then included in the compiled theme default.edj. One source is clearly
> GPLv3:
> https://tiheum.deviantart.com/art/Faenza-Icons-173323228
> 
> Now I wonder what the implications of this are...
> 1. Does Elementary become GPL because we load the theme and it contains
> executable code (embryo & edje programs), so the theme is to be considered
> a library, contaminating everything??
> 2. Or only the theme itself is GPL, by contamination from those images?
> 3. Or is the compiled theme file not GPL because we're not linking or
> derivating, merely archiving those images like in a Zip file, in which case
> only what's in the tree is GPL? This would be same as HTML:
> https://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/2113242/when-gpl-becomes-almost-gpl-the-css-images-and-javascript-loophole/informative-comments#comments
> 
> In the FAQ I only found a mention about fonts:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#FontException
> We don't have such an exception.
> 
> Pretty sure there is no problem (i.e. #3 is right), but IANAL so I'd rather
> ask away :)
> 

Licence wise i've always considered themes to be separate, whether that
is correct or not is another question. GPL with images is silly anyway
and we really should be asking upstream to relicense with some form of
creative commons anyway which makes far more sense, but I guess the
theme is probably technically GPL-3 as a binary.

Probably the biggest actual real life issue is if the theme is being
used in consumer devices such as tizen you would need to provide
consumers a way to swap there stock theme for one of there choice.

-- 

Simon Lees (Simotek)http://simotek.net

Emergency Update Team   keybase.io/simotek
SUSE Linux   Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel