Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:32 UTC, submitted by twenex
KDE The KDE 4 release team started a discussion about a possible release schedule for KDE 4. Of course nothing is set yet but the topic is now hot and some interesting problems and point of views come up. In other but related news Oxygen hit the mirrors, or better, kdelibs.
Thread beginning with comment 219622
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: problems with Debian?
by thebluesgnr on Thu 8th Mar 2007 13:35 UTC in reply to "RE: problems with Debian?"
Member since:

Hello Aaron,

the tango icons are also CC by-sa licensed. so it wouldn't just be our disaster.

The reference Tango icon theme is licensed under the CC and is in Debian's non-free repository. It's not comparable to Oxygen though, as tango-icon-theme is simply a reference implementation of a guideline that no desktop depends on (GNOME ships its own icon theme based on the Tango guidelines under the GPL).

I think it would be a wise move to license Oxygen under the LGPL for other reasons as well: you'd make it absolutely clear that the icons can be used freely in any application (free or non-free), just like the rest of the code in the kdelibs package. The icons shipped by GTK+ are under the LGPL, for example.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: problems with Debian?
by aseigo on Thu 8th Mar 2007 18:56 in reply to "RE[2]: problems with Debian?"
aseigo Member since:

> I think it would be a wise move to license Oxygen
> under the LGPL

personally i find using the *GPL to cover non-software products to be highly bizarre due to the rather software-specific language in the *GPL licenses. it's a matter of license/contract appropriateness.

-if- it becomes a problem, then we can dual license it. of course that's actually up to the artists, not me, but i'm sure they feel similarly given past discussions i've had with them =)

what i'd be interested in seeing is an actual legally trustworthy run down of the CC 3.0 BY-SA license that shows it isn't compatible with GPL'd or proprietary software or is itself non-free. i don't see the incompatibilities myself, but then i'm not a lawyer. i have heard that CC 3.0 was meant to address the issues raised in some circles about the 2.0 licenses, and the license certainly reads as Free to me.

if we can avoid innapropriate legalese in our licenses, that'd be great. i mean, the lgpl says at one point 'A "library" means a collection of software functions and/or data prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs' and then goes on to refer repeatedly to "the Library". now, i suppose we could say "icons are data" and that the icons are, in some fashion, meant to be "linked with" application programs. but it's all a bit more of a stretch than it needs to be if we simply used licenses meant to cover non-software creative works such as images or sound (as appropriate).

Reply Parent Score: 5