Paul Wise wrote: > According to the comments in one of the URLs in the initial mail in > this thread, the author of the facebook icon specifically created it > for pidgin-facebookchat, so I imagine they specifically licensed it > under the GPLv3 for pidgin-facebookchat folks. > > http://cubestuff.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/facebook-goes-tango/
About icons, initially, on May 2008 Facebookchat icons have been released under CC-BY-SA-NC as we can see on the left side of that page. Then, on August 2009, included in the project Breakdance [1] and released under public domain. Until August 2009, they were in Debian but non-DSFG compliant. AFAIK a specific GPLv3 license for facebookchat icons doesn't exist. Current debian/copyright confirms that. Regarding Skype icons, same creator, same initial license [2] but they are not in Breakdance so they are still CC-BY-SA-NC. My question remains: Shouldn't Skype and Facebook logos be treated as MSN butterfly, ICQ flower, Novell Groupwise messenger, Yahoo messenger and many others logos? If they should be at the moment, _that_ Facebook icons are ok because under public domain and _that_ Skype icons not because under CC-NC but we can substitute them with other Skype icons. If they should not be please tell me why highlighting differences among all trademarks. Gabriele [1] http://cubestuff.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/first-release-of-breakdance-a-tango-internet-service-icon-collection-public-domain/ [2] http://cubestuff.wordpress.com/2007/11/25/skype-goes-tango/ > >> For example, I have serious doubts about the freeness of the search >> engine icons in iceweasel (the ones on the top right of the UI). > > That is another matter that you should probably follow up with Mozilla > or whatever copyright holder you can find. > > PS: no need to CC me. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org