Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
> However I'm not sure that the icons taken from GPL'd packages may be
> relicensed under the LGPL. Althouh §3 of the LGPL allows relicensing
> LGPL-licensed code or data under the LGPL, I have not found such
> permission in the GPL.
GPL->LGPL is not a valid conversion indeed.
> Or, perhaps, simple data files like icons are not treated as binary
> executables and the difference between GPL/LGPL does not matter?
It's more likely that the affected upstream projects either aren't aware of
what's going on or don't really care about the license for something as simple
as an icon. Most likely both. Still, it's bad.
> Shall I revert to the old dual license of GPL/LGPL, use the more
> lenient LGPL since the package does not contain binary executables, or
> unify its license under the GPL, a move permited by §3 of the LGPL?
I'd say declare the license as GPL to be on the safe side. In this context, it
probably doesn't make a real difference anyway. (How do you "link" a menu
icon?)
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
