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. > 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@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
