Hi, I would tend to agree with what Paul wrote but IANAL and you should ask on debian-legal for a more authoritative answer. A few more comments below:
Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> wrote: >On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 07:36:42PM +0100, Felix Natter wrote: >> (upstream) Freeplane 1.3.x will have new icons (application icon, >> document icon), but the artist wants to keep all rights and only >grant >> the Freeplane project all rights of use. > >> --> Is that ok for Debian? > >Not for Debian main, no. You will have to strip the icons from the >software, or move it to non-free. The author should provide a clear license, e.g. using Creative Commons, as even redistributing artwork might be understood as a right of use, which Debian wouldn't have and hence even non-free would be impossible. > >> --> Is it even compatible with the GPL-2+ license of Freeplane? > >Yes[*] I guess, it means that having the icons in a jar file isn't OK, having them in the file system is OK, but java was always a border case because it doesn't "link" as it was understood when the GPL2 was written (GPL3 might even be another story). The easiest would be if upstream would change their plans and not take this artwork, no icon justifies the trouble, but I know upstream, coolness vs. legal were always difficult discussions ;-) > >> Thanks and Happy New Year, All the same, Eric >> -- >> Felix Natter > >[*]: So long as the icons are totally and sepretely loaded. For > instance, no one would claim the GPL'd GIMP program can only edit > GPL compatable images, just as in the general case, I don't think > it's a problem for a GPL'd program to render or load in non-GPL'd > assets. > > >Cheers, > Paul I'm on debian-java, java maintainers, vdr maintainers and debian-mentors; no need to CC me on these lists. Thanks!
