Re: Properly licensed icons

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Anil Ramnanan wrote:
> Ross Gardler (JIRA) wrote:
> 
> >Also note that the "sample.gif" included in this zip is not released under 
> >a compatible license, it is created by Eclipse wizards and is therefore 
> >under the EPL (I've been caught out by this one myself).
>
> I was wondering what kind of license is appropriate for icons. Would I 
> be able to use icons that were released under a creative commons license ?

It depends. The main thing is that we cannot add anything
that has retrictions beyond the terms of the Apache License.

Please direct us to an example of something that you want
to include and to their license conditions.

-David

Re: Properly licensed icons

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Anil Ramnanan wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> 
> >It depends. The main thing is that we cannot add anything
> >that has retrictions beyond the terms of the Apache License.
> >
> >Please direct us to an example of something that you want
> >to include and to their license conditions.
> >
> Here is an example of icons that are made available under the Creative 
> Commons license.
> http://www.graphicpush.com/index.php?s=icons
> 
> Here is the license that it is released under:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
> 
> Basically the license states
> You are free:
>    * to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
>    * to make derivative works
>    * to make commercial use of the work
> 
> Under the following conditions:
> by    Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified 
> by the author or licensor.

Most such licenses would ask for simple attribution
and we add it to our trunk/NOTICE.txt file. If these
people ask for something beyond that then we need
to assess that requirement.

>       Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, 
> you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to 
> this one.

See Ferdinand's comments.

>    * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the 
> license terms of this work.

That is okay. We would add their license beside
those files and retain their copyright headers.

>    * Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from 
> the copyright holder.

We wouldn't.

-David 

Re: Properly licensed icons

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Anil Ramnanan wrote:
> 
> Would I be ok with a BSD license ?

Basically, yes. We still need to investigate
each case.

> The only Icon collection I have found with such a licence is here.
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/icon-collection

Nope, there is a gotcha. I downloaded and looked at
the README. It says that it cannot be used without
his explicit consent. So, boom! ... cannot include it.

Clauses like this mean that all of our users must
obtain consent.

-David

Re: Properly licensed icons

[Anil Ramnanan <li...@peppersauce.org>]

David Crossley wrote:

>Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
>  
>
>>With creative commons licences it is extremely important to take a
>>close look at the license options as there are a variety of different
>>flavours that are explained very well at their website
>>http://creativecommons.org/.
>>
>>Anil Ramnanan wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, 
>>>you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to
>>>this one.http://creativecommons.org/
>>>      
>>>
>>If the share alike option is selected then this license is probably
>>not compatible with the Apache License.
>>    
>>
Would I be ok with a BSD license ?
The only Icon collection I have found with such a licence is here.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/icon-collection

Regards,
Anil.

Re: Properly licensed icons

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> 
> With creative commons licences it is extremely important to take a
> close look at the license options as there are a variety of different
> flavours that are explained very well at their website
> http://creativecommons.org/.
> 
> Anil Ramnanan wrote:
> > Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, 
> > you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to
> > this one.http://creativecommons.org/
> 
> If the share alike option is selected then this license is probably
> not compatible with the Apache License.

That was the part that worried me too.
It inhibits our downstream re-distributors.
Also what does "build upon" mean?

In this case it might be okay. It is a set
of icons that shouldn't be changed.

If people want this, then some of our committers
need to ensure that it is okay by taking it to
the legal-discuss mailing list:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html

The last time that this came up on our dev
list we were not sure about what to do.

Someone proposed to avoid the whole situation
by making a collection of Apache Licensed icons
to distribute with Forrest. Not yet happened.

Another solution would be to have a plugin
which is a Cocoon sitemap that generates a simple
graphic with text, colours, and size, based on
the request parameters. Should be easy.

Another solution would be to create a set of
static graphic icons, by extending our
trunk/tools/logos/ and we could check the
generated result into forrest core svn and/or
our plugins.

-David

Re: Properly licensed icons

[Ferdinand Soethe <fe...@apache.org>]

David Crossley wrote:

> Careful, that is old and only addresses the previous
> version of the Apache License.

Darn, and I was so happy to have found something that I could
understand ;-) Thanks for pointing that out.

--
Ferdinand Soethe

Re: Properly licensed icons

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> 
> There's a pretty good comparison of important open source licences at
> http://www.unt.edu/benchmarks/archives/2003/august03/copyright.htm.

Careful, that is old and only addresses the previous
version of the Apache License.

-David

Re: Properly licensed icons

[Ferdinand Soethe <fe...@apache.org>]

Ferdinand Soethe wrote:

> If the share alike option is selected then this license is probably
> not compatible with the Apache License.

There's a pretty good comparison of important open source licences at
http://www.unt.edu/benchmarks/archives/2003/august03/copyright.htm.

--
Ferdinand Soethe

Re: Properly licensed icons

[Ferdinand Soethe <fe...@apache.org>]

Anil Ramnanan wrote:

With creative commons licences it is extremely important to take a
close look at the license options as there are a variety of different
flavours that are explained very well at their website
http://creativecommons.org/.


> Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, 
> you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to
> this one.http://creativecommons.org/

If the share alike option is selected then this license is probably
not compatible with the Apache License.

--
Ferdinand Soethe

Re: Properly licensed icons

[Anil Ramnanan <li...@peppersauce.org>]

David Crossley wrote:

>It depends. The main thing is that we cannot add anything
>that has retrictions beyond the terms of the Apache License.
>
>Please direct us to an example of something that you want
>to include and to their license conditions.
>
>-David
>
>  
>
Here is an example of icons that are made available under the Creative 
Commons license.
http://www.graphicpush.com/index.php?s=icons

Here is the license that it is released under:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

Basically the license states
You are free:
    * to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
    * to make derivative works
    * to make commercial use of the work

Under the following conditions:
by    Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified 
by the author or licensor.
       Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, 
you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to 
this one.

    * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the 
license terms of this work.
    * Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from 
the copyright holder.


Anil.