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

[Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich]

Well, I basically agree with Dan.  Also, as Michael Peters pointed out, some oxygen icons are already in use anyway: http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=Evergreen.git;a=blob_plain;f=Open-ILS/xul/staff_client/server/skin/media/images/portal/LICENSE;h=7d6786bef98f278c68c35490759a72e8b858cecc;hb=master.

I contacted Nuno Pinheiro, who is the current coordinator of the Oxygen project for KDE.  My question and his response are below:

A Terça, 8 de Maio de 2012 15:04:18, você escreveu:
> Hello, Nuno.
> 
> The Evergreen Documentation Interest Group is trying to clarify licensing
> for the Oxygen icons.  We are considering using them for the Evergreen ILS
> project (http://open-ils.org/).
> 
> The website http://www.oxygen-icons.org/?page_id=4 lists the icon theme as
> dual-licensed.  In the KDE repository, the Oxygen theme is licensed only
> as LGPL.  Is LGPL currently the only license applicable to the Oxygen
> icons?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Alexey Lazar
> PALS
> Information System Developer and Integrator
> 507-389-2907
> http://www.mnpals.org/

yes lgpl v2 is the curreent licence, its less restrictive than the cc licence and I wont sue any one that uses oxygen :) 
-- 
Nuno Pinheiro | nuno.pinheiro at kdab.com | UI Designer 
Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB, a KDAB Group company
KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-independent software solutions

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

On May 8, 2012, at 08:35 , Dan Scott wrote:

> Hi all:
> 
> I'm kind of regretting bringing this up in the first place, but as I
> don't think we have any copyright lawyers on either the communications
> team or the oversight board, since I started this discussion, I'll take
> point on tracking down an authoritative answer.
> 
> For what it's worth, the PDF icon at
> http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/KDE/kdeartwork/IconThemes/primary/scalable/mimetypes/application-pdf.svgz?view=log
> is also licensed under the LGPL at
> http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/KDE/kdeartwork/IconThemes/primary/LICENSE?view=markup
> 
> For the short term, in my (I am not a lawyer and this does not
> constitute legal advice) opinion, I think it should be fine to include
> the KDE icon in question as long as we reproduce the license and note
> the provenance of the icon.
> 
> For example, keep the license file + icon in a separate directory and
> point to the location of the icon in the KDE repository, and perhaps
> note the exception in the docs themselves (which, come to think of it,
> should probably have a clear "licensing" section noting that the bulk of
> the content is licensed CC-BY-SA, with the exception of the LGPL icon;
> there may be more exceptions in the future - note there's a whole
> _other_ can of worms that arises due to our decision to license the
> documentation solely under the CC-BY-SA rather than under both the
> CC-BY-SA and the GPL, but we can and should discuss that separately).
> 
> We should of course always strive for perfect compliance, but if we're
> looking at this from a risk management perspective, I suspect it's not
> likely that the KDE project would go after our project aggressively.
> If they believed we were not in compliance with their license and
> intent, they would most likely just send us a nice email.
> 
> I'll come back with a more authoritative answer later, but I think we
> can move ahead if we take this fairly cautious approach.
> 
> Dan
> 
> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 08:39:24AM -0400, Soulliere, Robert wrote:
>> 
>> I wonder if the Evergreen Oversight Board or Communications Committee
>> could help us make the decision on the legality of using the images at
>> KDE? I don't have a comfortable feeling about using it based on what I
>> have read on the KDE site. However, if I get a thumbs up from the
>> Evergreen Oversight Board, then I would feel at ease and would use the
>> image. Since the DIG had been using a questionable image for the past
>> few years, I would like to be sure about the image choice. If there is
>> any doubt, then I think we need to use the current safe PDF image
>> currently in place.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robert
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Robert Soulliere, BA (Hons), MLIS
>> Systems Librarian
>> Mohawk College Library
>> robert.soulliere at mohawkcollege.ca
>> Telephone: 905 575 1212 x3936
>> Fax: 905 575 2011
>> ________________________________________
>> From: open-ils-documentation-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [open-ils-documentation-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Yamil Suarez [ysuarez at berklee.edu]
>> Sent: May 7, 2012 7:20 PM
>> To: Documentation discussion for Evergreen software
>> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION] PDF icon: licensing concern & fix
>> 
>> On May 7, 2012, at 6:42 PM, Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich wrote:
>> 
>>> Got it.  This is where it's at: http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/kdesupport/oxygen-icons/
>>> .  There is licensing information, and various icons of various
>>> sizes.  The PDF icon is titled application-pdf.png and is in a
>>> "mimetypes" folder for a given size.
>>> 
>>> Alexey Lazar
>>> PALS
>>> Information System Developer and Integrator
>>> 507-389-2907
>>> http://www.mnpals.org/
>>> 
>>> On May 7, 2012, at 16:15 , Yamil Suarez wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> Cool, this is getting us closer, though the copying license attached
>> to the icons in that collection seems to be only "GNU Lesser General
>> Public License v. 3 (LGPL)". This could be an issue since our
>> documentation is CC-BY-SA and not LGPL, but I know there are some
>> similarities between the two.
>> 
>> Here is the license listed for set of icons Alexey sent in:
>> http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/kdesupport/oxygen-icons/COPYING?view=markup
>> 
>> I am just trying to play it safe, and would welcome the input from
>> others more familiar with these type of licensing issues.
>> 
>> Yamil
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list
>> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION at list.georgialibraries.org
>> http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
>> 
>> This E-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended
>> only for the individual or entity named in the message.  If the reader
>> of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible
>> to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
>> any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
>> is prohibited.  If this communication was received in error, please
>> notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy
>> the original message.
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list
>> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION at list.georgialibraries.org
>> http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
> _______________________________________________
> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list
> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION at list.georgialibraries.org
> http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation