Thomas Wood wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 01:24 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> I have a problem with the following: >> >> Thomas Wood wrote: >> ... >> >> >>> 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). >>> >> The first and the second paragraphs are not mutually >> exclusive. I have this LGPL-ed application which has code >> like this: >> >> create_named_icon (icon_theme, widget, size, pixel_size, GTK_STOCK_HOME, >> "user-home", "gnome-fs-home", >> "folder_home", NULL); >> >> It will work without gnome icon theme, yet it references >> "gnome-fs-home" name. Am I violating GPL here? >> > > > I think Jakub tried to clear this up. Basically, I was trying to say if > your non-GPL application references an icon that is clearly from a GPL > theme without providing the icon itself, then this could be considered a > violation. I could argue that using any gnome-* icon name indicates a > reliance on the GNOME icon theme, which is GPL (almost all themes use > this as a fallback). >
Now it becomes a little ugly, so could someone involved into creating and maintaining gnome icon theme confirm that LGPL-ed code must not use "gnome-fs-home" name? I will happily fix my code in that case. Oh, and don't forget to tell Gtk folks to fix this license violation, by the way. Yevgen _______________________________________________ gnome-themes-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-themes-list
