Icon dispute and resolve

[Andreas Pour]

Ralf Nolden wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> due to that this seems to be the issue of the week, I've contacted Michael
> Robertson about the issue and the people who are involved in this.
> 
> We will resolve the problems about the icons in a decent manner so that there
> are no questions open together with the Lindows people, Everaldo and the SuSE
> people who are involved. [ . . . ]  We will make sure that the
> SVG files will be included also under LGPL which satisfies KDE's needs.

Hi,

If these things are being discussed I think we should not ask for the LGPL,
which has been stated time and again without any contradiction is totally
unsuited for artwork.

The KDE Artists seem to recommend amending the LGPL
(http://artist.kde.org/new/license.html) but I find that approach unsatisfactory
for many reasons, including that the LGPL states that it cannot be amended.  Why
not use the Free Art License (http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html) or
something more suitable?  I know we are stuck with what we have from the past
but if Everaldo is willing to negotiate a license why not use one that makes the
most sense for everyone involved?

(I would also note that it is far from clear to me that "KDE Artists" can hold a
copyright.  The US Code, for example, states, "Copyright in a work protected
under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work."  If you
want to assign this copyright to "KDE Artists" it must be done in writing, it
can be only of specified limited duration, and some other formalities followed,
and as I doubt that has happened I do not see the purpose in using "KDE Artists"
as a copyright, either in fact or as a recommendation on the website.)

Ciao,

Dre