New logo

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Friday 04 November 2011 Nov, C. Boemann wrote:
> On Friday 04 November 2011 00:14:30 Markus Slopianka wrote:
> > On Donnerstag 03 November 2011 22:50:58 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > > LGPL is really a bad idea for artwork...
> > 
> > No, it's not. The Oxygen team isn't stupid. They chose LGPL for a reason.
> Thank you for your confidence, but no we didn't have a real reason to choose 
> LGPL. We chose it because we were in a hurry and had to select something and 
> LGPL fitted the intention of how we wanted to license it.
> 
> And yes I was a member of Oxygen at the time and part of the inner discussions 
> about the licensing
> > 
> > > I would suggest CC-BY-SA, which is
> > > basically like LGPL but for artwork:
> > > 
> > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> > 
> > I repeat myself but I already suggested LGPL/CC dual licensing.

I think that's fine -- better then trying to come up with a specific license ourselves, since the existing licenses are already well understood.


> > LGPL is more handy for embedding artwork in GPLed apps while CC is better
> > for websites and alike.
> Yes I think that is the appropriate way, and what we did in Oxygen too
> 
> There is however still the matter of trademark i think we should settle at the 
> sprint before we license the logo.
> _______________________________________________
> calligra-devel mailing list
> calligra-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
> 
> 


-- 
Boudewijn Rempt
http://www.valdyas.org, http://www.krita.org, http://www.boudewijnrempt.nl