Re: Applying the GPL to Artwork
Yevgen Muntyan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnome.themes |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Thomas Wood wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 10:32 +0200, Stephan Arts wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Thomas Wood <[email protected]> wrote: >> > [...] > >>> I think Jakub tried to clear this up. Basically, I was trying to say if >>> your non-GPL application references an icon that is clearly from a GPL >>> theme without providing the icon itself, then this could be considered a >>> violation. I could argue that using any gnome-* icon name indicates a >>> reliance on the GNOME icon theme, which is GPL (almost all themes use >>> this as a fallback). >>> >>> Does this make sense? >>> >> Not at all, if the icon is bundled with the software, then yes. >> >> But there is no way any developer can figure out if the icon-theme in >> question is GPL-ed or not. And calling the use of an icon-name (a >> convention to make sure the same 'type' of icon is used across >> applications) a violation of the GPL?! >> >> That's rediculous. >> > > > Well, I'm quite happy to scrap that idea if it's what people want. > However, I believe the gnome-* convention is only specified in Nautilus > source code, which is GPL. So either way, if you specify a gnome-* icon > name in your non-GPL application and don't supply a non-GPL icon, it > seems fairly obvious you have copied some GPL code to get it to work? > Are you saying it is fairly obvious that I have copied GPL-ed Nautilus code into my LGPL-ed code, violating GPL and whatnot? Yevgen _______________________________________________ gnome-themes-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-themes-list