Hi Thos, an excellent summary. I always wanted to point people to a document like this. Of course it would be great to run it down by a lawyer. Some notes:
> Run Time Substitution > --------------------- > > If the icon is not required to allow the application to function (i.e. > can be substituted at run time and is not distributed with the > application) then the license does not apply. For example, this means > that users would not be violating the GPL if a proprietary application > uses a GPL icon theme. > > However, if a non-GPL application references an icon name from > gnome-icon-theme, this should be considered as linking (as described > above). This section is somewhat confusing in that it contradicts in the last paragraph what it said at the beginning. I think what we want to communicate in the last bit is that a GPL-incompatible application is allowed to look up an icon that may end up being taken from a GPL icon theme as long as that app doesn't rely on it. Either by supplying the icon itself, providing a fallback or using another, compatibly licensed theme. A non-GPL application cannot _rely_ on a GPL theme. > > Websites > -------- > > Websites are more tricky than applications under GPL v2, because the > machine readable application is very rarely distributed. > > I would like to suggest (as a minimum requirement) that if GPL artwork > is used on a website, then proper attribution of the author and a > statement of the license for the artwork is available in an appropriate > place in the website. This is also the most common question from people - am I allowed to use a GPL icon on a website? This one I'd really like to see evaluated by a lawyer. cheers -- Jakub Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://jimmac.musichall.cz _______________________________________________ gnome-themes-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-themes-list
