On Friday 17 February 2006 10:50, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Freitag, 17. Februar 2006 16:23 schrieb Robert Treat:
> > The issue is that we do not own the copyright on the elephant photo image
> > we use on the main website. We have a license to use it for the website,
> > and generally we could probably reuse it in an ad banner, but we can't
> > release it under a creative commons license (like our other graphics)
>
> On the matter of licenses:
>
> The web site of the logo-collecting project claims both that logos are
> under the BSD license and the Create Commons license. This should be
> cleared up. "Newer items" is not clear enough. None of the downloads I
> tried actually mentioned a specific license.
I agree. I didn't write that copy but I am guessing it refers to the graphics
donated by template monster, which were the newest at the time.
>
> Then, Create Commons is not a license but a set of licenses. You need to
> be clear which one you want.
>
on the website we mention it specifically, its this one -->
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/.
> I would, however, strongly advise against the Create Commons licenses.
> First of all, it creates weird problems if someone wants to include the
> graphics in a program or documentation licenses under a BSD or (L)GPL
> license. And second, even if you look past that, neither the Open Source
> Initiative nor the Debian Free Software Guidelines seem to think that
> Create Commons licenses are acceptable open source licenses, so programs
> creates using those graphics will have serious problems.
>
> Is there a reason why the BSD license cannot continue to be used?
I believe there was some concern by some of the graphics donors about re-using
the graphics in commercial products. I guess I would just wonder if we
should refuse graphics that are not BSD licensed? If we make clear as to
which license applies to which graphics, I think we should be open to
accepting more than just BSD.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL