[Fwd: Licensing Policy for non-code?]

[Kevin Krammer]

On Tuesday 24 October 2006 03:57, Clarence Dang wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 October 2006 00:40, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Monday 16 October 2006 6:53, Clarence Dang wrote:
> > > On Monday 16 October 2006 09:59, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > > I personally think we should settle on a set of Creative Commons
> > > licenses.
> >
> > once they are (with CCv3 afaik) compatible with the GPL, i agree.
> > until then we're sort of stuck with the LGPL.
>
> But why does it matter whether icons are GPL compatible?  You're never
> linking or deriving code from icons except for the tricky #include <x.xpm>
> case.

It's not a matter of linking, it's matter of allowing modification and 
redistribution (also of a modified version)

Another area where this can lead to problems is documentation, since the GNU 
FDL allows unmodifyable sections. If I remember correctly KDE's documentation 
contains a special clause that it is GFDL but does not contain such sections.

I think the main reason why this is important for Debian is that quite some 
portion of their users are also distributors (Ubuntu, Xandros, etc, or custom 
distributions like Munich's LiMux)


Cheers,
Kevin

-- 
Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer
KDE user support, developer mentoring
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20061024/0a0d920b/attachment.sig>