[OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION] PDF icon: licensing concern & fix

[Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich]

Hi, Dan.

Yes, good idea with the quick fix.

On a site called Icon Finder, there is a set of PDF icons which meet the Adobe licensing requirement (as far as I understand) and are of professional quality: http://www.iconfinder.com/icondetails/8890/128/pdf_reader_icon.  We could basically use those PNGs as-is.  I would vote in favor of that icon over the GNOME one.  The icon is part of the Oxygen icon theme, dual-license: http://www.oxygen-icons.org/?page_id=4.

Alexey Lazar
PALS
Information System Developer and Integrator
507-389-2907
http://www.mnpals.org/

On Apr 30, 2012, at 15:21 , Dan Scott wrote:

> Hey folks:
> 
> I noticed the Adobe PDF image on the bottom of the docs pages and thought
> "Hmm..."; taking a quick look at
> http://www.adobe.com/misc/linking.html#pdficon we're almost in
> compliance, with a big "but":
> 
> """
> The Adobe PDF file icon is provided solely as an indicator of an active
> link to a Portable Document Format file with a .pdf filename extension
> created using an Adobe® Acrobat® product. 
> """
> 
> Emphasis on "created using an Adobe® Acrobat® product"; as ours is not,
> we shouldn't be using that icon. (Actually, the icon isn't quite the
> same; ours has "Adobe" on it, which is probably worse because then we're
> contravening "3. You may not alter the Adobe PDF file icon in any
> manner").
> 
> So, a quick peek at GNOME's icons shows the "Dropline Etiquette" set at
> http://art.gnome.org/download/themes/icon/1049/ICON-DroplineEtiquette.tar.bz2
> has an appropriately licensed (CC-BY-SA) icon called
> /dlg-etiquette/scalable/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-pdf.svg that
> might meet our needs, if we don't want to create something ourselves.
> I've pushed a branch called "new_pdf_icon" to the DIG repository that
> contains a replacement GIF derived from the GNOME icon; to comply with
> the BY-SA license, I have included a comment in the GIF that clearly
> states the provenance of the icon.
> 
> In the spirit of "beg for forgiveness", I have gone ahead and pushed
> this change to the master, rel_2_1, and rel_2_0 branches of the repo
> too. This can obviously be changed later, but I thought it was important
> to address this (relatively minor) licensing violation right away.
> 
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list
> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION at list.georgialibraries.org
> http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation