Re: [Wikitech-l] third-party icon sets
Il 20/10/2014 22:53, Luis Villa ha scritto: On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org wrote: Are there policies/guidelines regarding the use of third-party icons in software maintained on WMF's Gerrit instance (e.g. MediaWiki extensions)? I'm unaware of any formal policies, aside from a general requirement that icons (like everything else hosted in git) be under an open license of some sort. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have that written down somewhere. (I note that there are no icons in the git repo itself, that I can find; this does not excuse problematic licensing, but does make it slightly less urgent to resolve.) For example, the Chameleon https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Chameleon skin appears to use Glyphicons http://glyphicons.com, whose license http://glyphicons.com/license/ is not very clear. The license looks fairly clear to me: png (free) version is under CC; version included with bootstrap is MIT; other versions are non-free. Thanks! I misunderstood the sentence «you are not required to include attribution on your Bootstrap-based projects» and thought the free license was bound to the presence of the Bootstrap. At a closer look, it is clear I was wrong. Has the author said things elsewhere to indicate that he(?) doesn't understand the MIT terms, or somehow believes they aren't under MIT? Assuming Chameleon uses the icons included with Bootstrap, this looks fairly straightforward to me. Even git.wikimedia.org https://git.wikimedia.org uses Glyphicons (the free PNG version) without complying with the CC-BY 3.0 license. If we're using them on git.wikimedia.org, we should probably fix that. (I see Chad says there is an upstream bug, but I can't find it for the life of me, despite looking in three different places. gitblit doesn't strike me as the most... organized project I've ever looked at.) Wouldn't it be better to use a really /free/ icon set (such as Font-Awesome https://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/ or Elusive Icons http://shoestrap.org/downloads/elusive-icons-webfont/) instead? As discussed above, parts of Glyphicon are CC and/or MIT, which is really free. There may be a discussion to be had around development models, sustainability, community-friendliness, etc., and if you want to have that discussion, by all means! But please don't confuse/complicate the discussion by saying things under free licenses aren't really free - if you're doing that, you're using the terms in a very different way from common, long-term usage. Hope that helps- It helped, as always! Luis ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] third-party icon sets
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org wrote: Are there policies/guidelines regarding the use of third-party icons in software maintained on WMF's Gerrit instance (e.g. MediaWiki extensions)? I'm unaware of any formal policies, aside from a general requirement that icons (like everything else hosted in git) be under an open license of some sort. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have that written down somewhere. (I note that there are no icons in the git repo itself, that I can find; this does not excuse problematic licensing, but does make it slightly less urgent to resolve.) For example, the Chameleon https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Chameleon skin appears to use Glyphicons http://glyphicons.com, whose license http://glyphicons.com/license/ is not very clear. The license looks fairly clear to me: png (free) version is under CC; version included with bootstrap is MIT; other versions are non-free. Has the author said things elsewhere to indicate that he(?) doesn't understand the MIT terms, or somehow believes they aren't under MIT? Assuming Chameleon uses the icons included with Bootstrap, this looks fairly straightforward to me. Even git.wikimedia.org https://git.wikimedia.org uses Glyphicons (the free PNG version) without complying with the CC-BY 3.0 license. If we're using them on git.wikimedia.org, we should probably fix that. (I see Chad says there is an upstream bug, but I can't find it for the life of me, despite looking in three different places. gitblit doesn't strike me as the most... organized project I've ever looked at.) Wouldn't it be better to use a really /free/ icon set (such as Font-Awesome https://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/ or Elusive Icons http://shoestrap.org/downloads/elusive-icons-webfont/) instead? As discussed above, parts of Glyphicon are CC and/or MIT, which is really free. There may be a discussion to be had around development models, sustainability, community-friendliness, etc., and if you want to have that discussion, by all means! But please don't confuse/complicate the discussion by saying things under free licenses aren't really free - if you're doing that, you're using the terms in a very different way from common, long-term usage. Hope that helps- Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.* ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] third-party icon sets
Il 04/09/2014 04:11, Ricordisamoa ha scritto: Are there policies/guidelines regarding the use of third-party icons in software maintained on WMF's Gerrit instance (e.g. MediaWiki extensions)? For example, the Chameleon https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Chameleon skin appears to use Glyphicons http://glyphicons.com, whose license http://glyphicons.com/license/ is not very clear. Even if it uses them as part of the Twitter Bootstrap, is it legal/fair to embed a piece of software (Glyphicons) that cannot be used freely without another piece (Bootstrap)? No opinions about the latter question? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] third-party icon sets
I am not employed by the WMF nor do I know the relevant policies of the WMF. I am also not a lawyer. I do not think that the use of Glyphicons is a problem in the case of Chameleon. 1. The Chameleon skin does not actually contain the Glyphicons Halflings font. In fact, it does not even contain the Bootstrap framework. These are pulled in during the installation process. 2. Even if Chameleon were actually containing Bootstrap directly, the use of Glyphicons would be covered by the Bootstrap license. [1] 3. The developers of Bootstrap ask to include a link back to Glyphicons whenever possible. I am not sure if this has any legal relevance, I do not think so. However, Chameleon contains a link back to the Glyphicons page in its documentation. This admittedly only since a few days. [2] On 19 October 2014 08:05, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org wrote: Il 04/09/2014 04:11, Ricordisamoa ha scritto: Even if it uses them as part of the Twitter Bootstrap, is it legal/fair to embed a piece of software (Glyphicons) that cannot be used freely without another piece (Bootstrap)? I do not understand the question. Chameleon uses Twitter Bootstrap, but without Bootstrap? Stephan [1] https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/blob/master/LICENSE [2] https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-skins-chameleon/blob/master/docs/credits.md ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] third-party icon sets
On Thursday, September 4, 2014, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
javascript:;
wrote:
Even git.wikimedia.org https://git.wikimedia.org uses Glyphicons (the
free PNG version) without complying with the CC-BY 3.0 license.
That's an upstream bug: https://github.com/gitblit/gitblit
We're getting rid of it anyway in the magical Phabricator future.
... and Phabricator comes with Font Awesome support out of the box -- see
https://secure.phabricator.com/uiexample/view/PHUIIconExample/
Be ready for iconic comments and descriptions! {icon fa-smile-o}
--
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
