artwork in extensions licensed with GPL/LGPL/MPL
Adam Kowalewski
we received some nice and at the moment still 'not licensed at all'
artwork for our Komodo extension 'Koala' ( http://koala.mozdev.org/ )
which itself is licensed with GPL/LGPL/MPL.
Our artist would like to protect her name, something like 'cc-by'.
How can we do it - distribute our extension as one xpi file and
include artwork files which are licensed differently. Which license
should we use for those art files?
big THX
adam
Gervase Markham
> we received some nice and at the moment still 'not licensed at all'
> artwork for our Komodo extension 'Koala' ( http://koala.mozdev.org/ )
> which itself is licensed with GPL/LGPL/MPL.
>
> Our artist would like to protect her name, something like 'cc-by'.
You mean she wants her name to continue to be attached to the works?
What about modified versions? Does she want her name removed, kept or
doesn't she mind?
Assuming CC-BY was OK legally, how would you follow that license and
credit her in your application?
Gerv
Adam Kowalewski
> What about modified versions? Does she want her name removed, kept or
> doesn't she mind?
We talk here about Logo and the default icons theme.
Modified versions of our extension should always give her credit. Her
artwork may be used in other commercial / non commercial projects but
her credit has to be protected.
> Assuming CC-BY was OK legally, how would you follow that license and
> credit her in your application?
In out extension we would add her name and homepage link in the
'about' window,
Gervase Markham
>> Assuming CC-BY was OK legally, how would you follow that license and
>> credit her in your application?
>
> In out extension we would add her name and homepage link in the
> 'about' window,
I checked, and CC-BY is not compatible with the GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
so if you want your extension to continue to be tri-licensed, then you
can't take her work under CC-BY.
I'm not sure what licence would be suitable. No licence permits the
removal of accurate copyright information, so they all go that far. But
most are focussed on making sure that people's names don't get used for
endorsement, rather than explicitly protecting their right to a credit.
If you have a licence which requires a credit, you start getting close
to the BSD advertising clause:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#UC_Berkeley_advertising_clause
which makes a licence non-free.
Perhaps the general copyright-law requirement to preserve copyright
notices is strong enough for her? If so, she could either tri-license
the work, or make it available under a BSD-like or MIT-like licence.
Gerv
Adam Kowalewski
Can we add to our Tri-licensed (GPL/LGPL/MPL) extension, which will be
delivered as one single xpi file, following files:
Koala_logo.png – licensed with 3-clause BSD
Koala_icon16.png – licensed with 3-clause BSD
Koala_icon32.png – licensed with 3-clause BSD
Koala_artwork_license.txt – text of the 3-clause BSD license with
modified point 3:
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this artwork
must display the following acknowledgement: “This product includes
artwork created by Lidiya Ivanova.”
Artist’s credit will be placed in about ‘window’:
Koala -> About (XUL Window)
Developers:
a.a. <link to homepage>
b.b. <link to homepage>
c.c. <link to homepage>
Artists:
Lidiya Ivanova <link to homepage>
--------------------------------------------------
Gervase Markham
> Koala_artwork_license.txt – text of the 3-clause BSD license with
> modified point 3:
> All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this artwork
> must display the following acknowledgement: “This product includes
> artwork created by Lidiya Ivanova.”
No. This type of clause is known as the "BSD advertising clause" and is
incompatible with the GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
So you cannot have code covered with it in a tri-licensed extension.
Gerv
Adam Kowalewski
i think i described this situation detailed enough to receive a
detailed answer.
Frank Hecker
As Gerv noted, the MPL/GPL/LGPL have clauses pertaining to preservation
of copyright and license notices. In this case the artwork itself
doesn't have a copyright notice embedded within it (as a source file
would), so you should put the copyright notice in the "About" window,
e.g., "The Koala logo and aasociated image files are copyright 2009 by
Lidiya Ivanova", along with whatever other license-related notices you
have regarding the MPL/GPL/LGPL license on the extension as a whole. You
could then rely on the relevant clauses in the MPL, GPL, and LGPL that
restrict downstream licensees from removing or altering license and
copyright notices.
Also, she could consider making a formal copyright registration for the
Koala logo images. In the US you can do this through the US Copyright
Office for $35:
http://www.copyright.gov/register/
This would strengthen her copyright claim, e.g. by making it easier to
pursue damages against people who redistribute the images without her
copyright notice.
Frank
--
Frank Hecker
hec...@mozillafoundation.org
Colby Russell
> As Gerv noted, the MPL/GPL/LGPL have clauses pertaining to preservation
> of copyright and license notices.
This is a good point. If I understand your comments correctly, you seem
to be suggesting that the artwork be licensed under MPL/GPL/LGPL since
those licenses should be sufficient to achieve what the artist wants,
which is attribution for her artwork, and anything else that isn't
equivalent to or freer than the most restrictively-copyleft bits of
those licenses would would make it ineligible for distribution in an
extension that is tri-licensed.
Also, a suggestion I have is that since the artwork you're using
presumably includes artwork for the UI, and probably uses CSS sprites
(cf.
http://mxr.mozilla.org/firefox/source/browser/themes/winstripe/browser/Toolbar.png
and
http://mxr.mozilla.org/firefox/source/browser/themes/winstripe/browser/browser.css#261).
I think it would be neat if the image itself were edited to include the
copyright/attribution byline at the bottom, while the skin CSS continues
restricting the displayable region.
This is a nice analog to source code, in the way that the raw source
files themselves contain readily apparent licensing verbiage, although
its not present during use except for explicit notices in the
appropriate "About" dialogs, etc.
Colby Russell
> This is a good point. If I understand your comments correctly, you seem
Of course, you are only giving your opinion, and not giving legal advice.
--
Colby Russell