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

[Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich]

> Can I ask the DIG if we can go ahead with this icon as a placeholder,
> and if anyone with more design skills wants to step up with an
> alternative (that still avoids the whole derived red scripted "A"
> problem), we can always replace it?

Well, apart from the fact that I still think we are trying to solve a copyright issue that does not exist, I think this is a fine idea for a placeholder.  I could refine it some more, but let me look around and see if there is an icon or icon set out there that we could use that matches our licensing and alleviates any other potential concerns.  Perhaps this could be done in conjunction with the upcoming website revision.

I would also support leaving the icon as is, unless we are asked to remove it, or just using plain text-as-text and spelling out PDF for that link.

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

On May 24, 2012, at 09:33 , Dan Scott wrote:

> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:04:19AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>> Tony, thanks for your comments on this:
>> 
>> I'd written:
>>>> We could, however, come to some sort of fair use analysis of this
>>>> situation and determine that the icon can be used -- at least in the
>>>> USA -- without such strict compliance with the LGPL.  Tony, do you
>>>> have any thoughts on that, given the facts Dan presented above?
>> 
>> Tony Sebro wrote at 17:28 (EDT) on Wednesday:
>>> I don't think this would qualify as fair use, because the value of
>>> this icon file is derived from its use of Adobe's trademark.  The
>>> original copyright holder, Adobe, has articulated its desire for this
>>> icon file (and the logo) to be associated with PDFs specifically
>>> created by Adobe software.  Using it to link to PDFs created by other
>>> sources could devalue the logo, which would by extension reduce the
>>> value of the icon file to Adobe.
>> 
>> I hadn't even realized that KDE's icon might actually be either (a) a
>> copyright derivative work of an Adobe icon and/or (b) in need of a
>> trademark license from Adobe.  I had assumed that KDE's licensing of
>> their similar icon under LGPL indicated there were no issues with (a),
>> but maybe we cannot assume that.  With regard to (b), we'll have to rely
>> on Tony's analysis, I think, and he's telling us clearly that we can't
>> be assured of a trademark license if Evergreen is using non-Adobe
>> software (which Evergreen is, I believe) to generate PDFs.
>> 
>> Moving forward, we'll have to figure out what to do.  Dan's original
>> post at
>> http://list.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-documentation/2012-April/001192.html
>> suggests using GNOME's icon, which appears to be less problematic with
>> regard to Adobe's policy, but we should do the same analysis there.
>> Tony, can you take a look at it and think about it?  Conservancy has
>> good contacts and a good relationship with the GNOME Foundation, so we
>> can talk to them about whatever analysis they did too.
>> 
>> We could have the same conversation with KDE eV, but I can't really
>> imagine their analysis would be different than Tony's.  Plus, they're in
>> Germany and perhaps the legal situation is different enough that their
>> analysis wouldn't help us.  I assume they believe they have the right to
>> license their icon under LGPL and have complied with the trademark
>> license for their use of it in KDE, but it doesn't mean Evergreen is
>> automatically in compliance with the trademark license, even *if*
>> Evergreen stays in compliance with the LGPL.
>> 
>> I think, though, to start, we need to understand: what does the
>> Evergreen Community *want* with regard to its PDF icon in its
>> documentation?  Is the GNOME one adequate?  Do you want us to figure out
>> how to safely use the KDE one, notwithstanding its similarity to the
>> Adobe one?  Can you all indicate Conservancy the outcome you'd like to
>> have, so we can try to achieve it for you?
> 
> Hi Bradley:
> 
> Thanks for your comments and for Tony's comments and time on this
> matter. I think we want to:
> 
> 1) Avoid putting the Software Freedom Conservancy and the Evergreen
> project in a position of possibly infringing copyright or license terms,
> with respect to the original PDF trademark that Adobe put forth. Given
> that my Fedora 16 GNOME 3 install uses a very generic icon of a document
> (with text flowing around an image) for PDF, rather than anything
> approaching the red scripted "A", I suspect Fedora or GNOME or
> both wanted to avoid the possibility of a derived work from the original
> Adobe trademark for PDF.
> 
> 2) Our primary goal for the icon is simply to unambiguously identify a
> PDF version of the documentation. So, I'll suggest using something like
> a simple red "PDF" written on a white background for that purpose -- and
> have attached the GIMP source and a 256x256 PNG icon as a starter for
> that. (And of course I'll license it under the CC-BY-SA to make it a
> straightforward match for our docs!)
> 
> Can I ask the DIG if we can go ahead with this icon as a placeholder,
> and if anyone with more design skills wants to step up with an
> alternative (that still avoids the whole derived red scripted "A"
> problem), we can always replace it?
> 
> Dan
> <pdf_icon.xcf><pdf_icon.png>_______________________________________________
> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list
> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION at list.georgialibraries.org
> http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation