Thread: logos and the BSD license
Hi All, I was wondering, how the BSD license applies to images (as on http://pgfoundry.org/projects/graphics/). I am working on a magazine ad, and was wondering whether i could use one of those PostgreSQL logo's. The idea is to have a bar of logo's of supported products in the ad, among which is PostgreSQL. But the BSD license talks about source code and binary form, mentioning that the copyright should be included. So, is it correct to state that the logo can be used in an ad, providing that it mentions that the logo is copyright by such-and-such..? Thanks, Koen Martens -- K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/ Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence. Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
On Monday 21 August 2006 06:39, Koen Martens wrote: > Hi All, > > I was wondering, how the BSD license applies to images (as on > http://pgfoundry.org/projects/graphics/). > > I am working on a magazine ad, and was wondering whether i could use > one of those PostgreSQL logo's. The idea is to have a bar of logo's > of supported products in the ad, among which is PostgreSQL. > > But the BSD license talks about source code and binary form, > mentioning that the copyright should be included. So, is it correct > to state that the logo can be used in an ad, providing that it > mentions that the logo is copyright by such-and-such..? > The graphics available in the project are also licensed under a BSD license, which I *think* is covered by having meta information on the graphic file stating the license and where it was achieved from. Someone probably ought to do an audit of those graphics to verify that, but that is the intention afaik. -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > The graphics available in the project are also licensed under a BSD license, > which I *think* is covered by having meta information on the graphic file > stating the license and where it was achieved from. Someone probably ought > to do an audit of those graphics to verify that, but that is the intention > afaik. Hmm, so basically, you think it is ok to use the logos in an ad for my company as long as i preserve the meta data (which will be lost when it goes to print of course). Frankly, i'm still a bit confused. Maybe it is best if i contact the creator of the logo directly. Personally, I think the BSD license is confusing for graphics. Gr, Koen -- K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/ Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence. Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
Koen, > Personally, I think the BSD license is confusing for graphics. Agreed ... we should really be using Creative Commons or something. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Koen Martens wrote: > Personally, I think the BSD license is confusing for graphics. What would you suggest instead? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Koen Martens wrote:
>> Personally, I think the BSD license is confusing for graphics.
>
> What would you suggest instead?
>
Creative Commons :)
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Koen Martens wrote: >>> Personally, I think the BSD license is confusing for graphics. >> >> What would you suggest instead? >> > Creative Commons :) > You've read my mind :) Gr, Koen -- K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/ Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence. Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 01:35 schrieb Joshua D. Drake: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Koen Martens wrote: > >> Personally, I think the BSD license is confusing for graphics. > > > > What would you suggest instead? > > Creative Commons :) Creative Commons publishes a number of licenses, but all of them are significantly more restrictive (and more complicated) than the BSD license, to the extent that they are incompatible with traditional standards for free software. Since PostgreSQL graphics should be available for inclusion into program packages (e.g., menu icons) or documentation, this would be a serious restriction. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 01:35 schrieb Joshua D. Drake: >> Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Koen Martens wrote: >>>> Personally, I think the BSD license is confusing for graphics. >>> What would you suggest instead? >> Creative Commons :) > > Creative Commons publishes a number of licenses, but all of them are > significantly more restrictive (and more complicated) than the BSD license, > to the extent that they are incompatible with traditional standards for free > software. Since PostgreSQL graphics should be available for inclusion into > program packages (e.g., menu icons) or documentation, this would be a serious > restriction. You are probably right. If the goal is to let anyone use the graphics in any way they want, why have a license at all?? The main point is, however, that it is not completely clear how the BSD license, a software license, applies to graphics. So maybe there is nothing wrong with having the BSD license, but that is not really clear to me (and perhaps others). Gr, Koen -- K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/ Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence. Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 10:38 schrieb Koen Martens: > You are probably right. If the goal is to let anyone use the > graphics in any way they want, why have a license at all?? Because under international copyright law, if there is no license (or some other explicit permission), you don't have the right to do anything with the work. > The main point is, however, that it is not completely clear how the > BSD license, a software license, applies to graphics. So maybe there > is nothing wrong with having the BSD license, but that is not really > clear to me (and perhaps others). In computing, there is only software, hardware, and wetware. Computer graphics are also software. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On 23/8/2006 18:17, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 10:38 schrieb Koen Martens: >> You are probably right. If the goal is to let anyone use the >> graphics in any way they want, why have a license at all?? > > Because under international copyright law, if there is no license (or some > other explicit permission), you don't have the right to do anything with the > work. > >> The main point is, however, that it is not completely clear how the >> BSD license, a software license, applies to graphics. So maybe there >> is nothing wrong with having the BSD license, but that is not really >> clear to me (and perhaps others). > > In computing, there is only software, hardware, and wetware. Computer > graphics are also software. Could graphics not be considered similar to a compiled binary image of the software? As long as the artist specifies that the BSD license applies. Maybe Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose, from the license can be changed to Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software, graphics and its documentation for any purpose, or Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation and supplied/included graphics for any purpose,
Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 17:05 schrieb Shane Ambler: > Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its > documentation for any purpose, > > from the license can be changed to > > Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software, graphics and > its documentation for any purpose, What specific problem would that solve? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Shane Ambler wrote:
> On 23/8/2006 18:17, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 10:38 schrieb Koen Martens:
>>> You are probably right. If the goal is to let anyone use the
>>> graphics in any way they want, why have a license at all??
>> Because under international copyright law, if there is no license (or some
>> other explicit permission), you don't have the right to do anything with the
>> work.
>>
>>> The main point is, however, that it is not completely clear how the
>>> BSD license, a software license, applies to graphics. So maybe there
>>> is nothing wrong with having the BSD license, but that is not really
>>> clear to me (and perhaps others).
>> In computing, there is only software, hardware, and wetware. Computer
>> graphics are also software.
The BSD license really doesn't apply itself to software very well. It is
like using the GPL for documentation. There is a reason the Free
Documentation License was created.
I don't see what the problem with Creative Commons is. It is quickly
becoming the license standard for creative works.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Shane Ambler wrote: > >On 23/8/2006 18:17, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >>Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 10:38 schrieb Koen Martens: > >>>You are probably right. If the goal is to let anyone use the > >>>graphics in any way they want, why have a license at all?? > >>Because under international copyright law, if there is no license (or some > >>other explicit permission), you don't have the right to do anything with > >>the > >>work. > >> > >>>The main point is, however, that it is not completely clear how the > >>>BSD license, a software license, applies to graphics. So maybe there > >>>is nothing wrong with having the BSD license, but that is not really > >>>clear to me (and perhaps others). > >>In computing, there is only software, hardware, and wetware. Computer > >>graphics are also software. > > The BSD license really doesn't apply itself to software very well. Huh!? That's news to me. Can you elaborate a bit? > I don't see what the problem with Creative Commons is. It is quickly > becoming the license standard for creative works. Creative Commons is not a license. If you point at a specific CC license we can discuss things, otherwise everyone is just handwaving. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
>>>>> The main point is, however, that it is not completely clear how the >>>>> BSD license, a software license, applies to graphics. So maybe there >>>>> is nothing wrong with having the BSD license, but that is not really >>>>> clear to me (and perhaps others). >>>> In computing, there is only software, hardware, and wetware. Computer >>>> graphics are also software. >> The BSD license really doesn't apply itself to software very well. > > Huh!? That's news to me. Can you elaborate a bit? I think I fat fingered that ;) I meant: The BSD License really doesn't apply itself to graphics very well. Sorry about that. > > >> I don't see what the problem with Creative Commons is. It is quickly >> becoming the license standard for creative works. > > Creative Commons is not a license. If you point at a specific CC > license we can discuss things, otherwise everyone is just handwaving. Well, in the spirit of the BSD I would say: Attribution (by) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 18:04 schrieb Joshua D. Drake: > The BSD license really doesn't apply itself to [graphics] very well. It is > like using the GPL for documentation. I think that the GPL fits perfectly well for documentation. > There is a reason the Free Documentation License was created. The GNU FDL has a host of problems, but that's off topic here. One rather severe problem, however, is that you can't take example code from a GNU FDL-licenses document and put it into GPL-licensed code. In the worst case, with open collaborative groups such as this, it may mean you can't take code snippets from your own documentation and put it into your own code. A similar problem will apply if someone wants to build a PostgreSQL distribution using the supplied graphics. It is not quite the same as GPL vs. FDL, but it creates a mess nonetheles.s -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 18:29 schrieb Joshua D. Drake: > Well, in the spirit of the BSD I would say: > > Attribution (by) > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Well, the main problem with that license is that it prohibits you from copying the works over encrypted links or storing the works on encrypted media or a computer protected by a password. "You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access" The more general problem is that it is excessively complicated and ambiguously worded and doesn't achieve anything beyond what the BSD license does. If the BSD license is too complicated still, I can offer the following alternative license: "You may use, modify and redistribute this software as you wish." -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Alvaro Herrera wrote: >Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >>Shane Ambler wrote: >> >> >>>On 23/8/2006 18:17, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 10:38 schrieb Koen Martens: >>>> >>>> >>>>>You are probably right. If the goal is to let anyone use the >>>>>graphics in any way they want, why have a license at all?? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Because under international copyright law, if there is no license (or some >>>>other explicit permission), you don't have the right to do anything with >>>>the >>>>work. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The main point is, however, that it is not completely clear how the >>>>>BSD license, a software license, applies to graphics. So maybe there >>>>>is nothing wrong with having the BSD license, but that is not really >>>>>clear to me (and perhaps others). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>In computing, there is only software, hardware, and wetware. Computer >>>>graphics are also software. >>>> >>>> >>The BSD license really doesn't apply itself to software very well. >> >> > >Huh!? That's news to me. Can you elaborate a bit? > > > > >>I don't see what the problem with Creative Commons is. It is quickly >>becoming the license standard for creative works. >> >> > >Creative Commons is not a license. If you point at a specific CC >license we can discuss things, otherwise everyone is just handwaving. > > > The Creative Commons stuff, as the BSD license, pre-supposes that there is a clear copyright by an entity or group of entities that has been acknowlerdged and asserted by the copyright holder. In the case of Postgresql, where can you find a definitive and defined copyright holder? In the absence of a copyright holder, material is in the public domain, and this is dangerous, since public domain materials can be captured and as part of a large work, be copyrighted. Who in the postgresql community can say I or my group owns the copyright, therefore we license the work to you. And, given the attribution rule of creative commons, just who should be attributed in terms of postgresql materials -- we attribute this to all you postgresql folks, whereever you might be hiding, and whoever you are, in direct proportion to your claim contribution to 8.2? or all possible versions. This molehill reminds me of the Catholic concept of scrupolosity.. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/425 - Release Date: 8/22/2006
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
As a side note, I'd no more trust licenses written by programmers than I would code written by lawyers, for much the same reason.
Brian
Are you a lawyer? If not, I'd be carefull about jumping to conclusions about what a license does or doesn't mean. Note, I'm not a lawyer either, so I can't definitively say that the license *doesn't* mean what you think it means. But I do know that the law and legal documents (like licenses) are similiar to programming, in which they have taken common english words and turned them into terms of the art- much like programmers have with 'object', 'function', 'procedure', etc. People not familiar with programming might *think* they know what we mean when we talk about objects, but they really don't. The core here is the word "distribute". What does the legal meaning (as opposed to the common meaning) of the word "distribute" mean? I will comment that Lawerence Lessig *is* a lawyer, and thus presumably knows what the legal meaning (as opposed to the common meaning) of the word 'distribute' is.Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 18:29 schrieb Joshua D. Drake:Well, in the spirit of the BSD I would say: Attribution (by) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/Well, the main problem with that license is that it prohibits you from copying the works over encrypted links or storing the works on encrypted media or a computer protected by a password. "You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access" The more general problem is that it is excessively complicated and ambiguously worded and doesn't achieve anything beyond what the BSD license does. If the BSD license is too complicated still, I can offer the following alternative license: "You may use, modify and redistribute this software as you wish."
As a side note, I'd no more trust licenses written by programmers than I would code written by lawyers, for much the same reason.
Brian
Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 19:37 schrieb mdean: > In the absence of a copyright holder, material is in the public > domain, and this is dangerous, since public domain materials can be > captured and as part of a large work, be copyrighted. Unless the work appears out of thin air or is the subject of a statutory exemption, there are always copyright holders. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 19:43 schrieb Brian Hurt: > Are you a lawyer? If not, I'd be carefull about jumping to conclusions > about what a license does or doesn't mean. I'm not debating what the license means, I'm telling you what it says. If you know what it means, please tell us. If no one is able to tell us, I doubt that we should use it. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Good analysis. What is wrong with using a BSD license for graphics? No one has explained that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 18:29 schrieb Joshua D. Drake: > > Well, in the spirit of the BSD I would say: > > > > Attribution (by) > > > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ > > Well, the main problem with that license is that it prohibits you from copying > the works over encrypted links or storing the works on encrypted media or a > computer protected by a password. > > "You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly > digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control > access" > > The more general problem is that it is excessively complicated and ambiguously > worded and doesn't achieve anything beyond what the BSD license does. > > If the BSD license is too complicated still, I can offer the following > alternative license: "You may use, modify and redistribute this software as > you wish." > > -- > Peter Eisentraut > http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Good analysis. What is wrong with using a BSD license for graphics? No > one has explained that. Actually this all started with the confusion per Koen and is documented at the beginning of the thread. As far as Peter's point we could easily just remove that one clause. Alternatively do it the way SQL Lite has done it... public domain. Joshua D. Drake > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 18:29 schrieb Joshua D. Drake: >>> Well, in the spirit of the BSD I would say: >>> >>> Attribution (by) >>> >>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ >> Well, the main problem with that license is that it prohibits you from copying >> the works over encrypted links or storing the works on encrypted media or a >> computer protected by a password. >> >> "You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly >> digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control >> access" >> >> The more general problem is that it is excessively complicated and ambiguously >> worded and doesn't achieve anything beyond what the BSD license does. >> >> If the BSD license is too complicated still, I can offer the following >> alternative license: "You may use, modify and redistribute this software as >> you wish." >> >> -- >> Peter Eisentraut >> http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Peter Eisentraut wrote: >Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 19:43 schrieb Brian Hurt: > > >>Are you a lawyer? If not, I'd be carefull about jumping to conclusions >>about what a license does or doesn't mean. >> >> > >I'm not debating what the license means, I'm telling you what it says. If you >know what it means, please tell us. If no one is able to tell us, I doubt >that we should use it. > > > this thread is like the wiwi bird -- everybody keeps flying in ever decreasing circles until the issue flys up its own asshole. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/425 - Release Date: 8/22/2006
Michael, > this thread is like the wiwi bird -- everybody keeps flying in ever > decreasing circles until the issue flys up its own a______ Please watch your language, thanks. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: >Michael, > > > >>this thread is like the wiwi bird -- everybody keeps flying in ever >>decreasing circles until the issue flys up its own a______ >> >> > >Please watch your language, thanks. > > > I'm right!! Roman Catholic Scrupulosity is rampant! Sometimes good Anglo Saxon verbiage is the best descriptor for a process. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/425 - Release Date: 8/22/2006
mdean wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>>
>>
>>> this thread is like the wiwi bird -- everybody keeps flying in ever
>>> decreasing circles until the issue flys up its own a______
>>>
>>
>> Please watch your language, thanks.
>>
>>
>>
> I'm right!! Roman Catholic Scrupulosity is rampant! Sometimes good Anglo
> Saxon verbiage is the best descriptor for a process.
Not on this list.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/