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@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel > > -- Boudewijn Rempt http://www.valdyas.org, http://www.krita.org, http://www.boudewijnrempt.nl _______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
