Re: Icon Licensing... (Suggestion: Artistic License 2.0)

[Alex Perez]

Gregory John Casamento wrote:
> Quentin,
>
> --- Quentin Mathé <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> > Le 5 nov. 04, à 14:40, Gregory John Casamento a écrit :
> >
> >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > Have we made any decision or come to any conclusion on what license 
> > > we're going
> > > to use for the icons?   Last I heard there were concerns and 
> > > objections to
> > > using the suggested "Art" license and it's compatibility with the 
> > > GPL/LGPL.
> >
> > I think we will use MIT/X11 license or model our license on it, I'm 
> > currently talking with Jasper Hauser about that.
>
>
> Has the use of the MIT/X11 licenses been cleared with the FSF, since these will
> be included in GNUstep?   Also, I have yet to read any kind of explaination as
> to why the GPL/LGPL is not being considered given that our current set of icons
> is under it, I don't see a problem with putting this set of icons under it.
>
> I do know that the MIT/X11 license is GPL-compatible so it's probably not that
> bug a deal, but it's less confusing, IMHO, to have everything under one
> license.

There's a list of FSF-approved, copyleft and free licenses at 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html . As another possible 
license for our icons, the Artistic License 2.0 is free *AND* copyleft, 
and might be more appropriate for icons...see 
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/346.html for more info.

> > > Slightly
> > > better might be to have Jasper Hauser assign copyright to whoever pays 
> > > for the
> > > icons and have that person commit them to GNUstep under whatever 
> > > license we
> > > agree on.
> >
> > Well I don't see why it would be slightly better… ?
> > I don't think Jasper will agree to let the copyright to someone else 
> > except GNUstep project itself (which doesn't exist legally I think), I 
> > understand him on this point. I must said myself I always found dubious 
> > to have a copyright holder which is not the author or the entity 
> > (company, project or whatever) which is the immediate recipient of the 
> > creation (I know it's recurrent practice in the US).

yet another reason to have a GNUstep Foundation, IMHO. It would be a 
legal entity that copyright could be signed over to if they didn't want 
to sign it over to the FSF.
> You are correct GNUstep isn't a legal entity, it's a project of the FSF, the
> FSF owns the copyright to GNUstep and *IS* a legal entity.  It is possible for
> him to assign the copyright to the FSF via an assignment. This would address
> any concerns about assigning it to an individual.   
>
> Does he have any reservations about the GPL/LGPL? 

Yes, does he?