Tejas Dinkar wrote:
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 10:14:19AM -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
Adding extra restrictions like this goes against the OSS definition/spirit.
Artwork isn't software.
He said it's against the spirit :p
How can an artwork license go against the definition/spirit of open
source software? Artwork != software. The definition/spirit of open
source software simply does not apply. (Sidestepping the fact that
'definition/spirit of OSS' is rather ambiguous - referring to all of OSS
rather than a particular software license. For example, the spirit of
the GPL is different than the spirit of a BSD license...)
The closest thing to 'oss definition/spirit' for artwork could be
creative commons, which has a several licenses that include a
'non-commercial' clause. Artwork licenses are necessarily different than
software licenses - alluding to the unfortunate fact that many people
incorrectly assume that artwork part of or related to a FOSS project (or
if it's licensed under *any* creative commons license) is the equivalent
of public domain. This is not the case.
It does not help, though, that the license for the moinmoin theme &
artwork is not defined/stated anywhere (well, at least that I can find.)
It probably should be.
A Valid point, but IMO if you _CAN_ afford to hire someone to make a nice site for you, you should... On the Other hand if you just want a small site to play with, it's easier to just "borrow" designs :p
"Borrow" as long as it's allowed by the license for the design. Let's
not forget that.
Actually, who DOES own the copyrights on the templates, anyway?
This is a good question to ask. I would assume hrishi & dfong:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/2005-November/msg00142.html
Do be sure to file a request for using the Fedora logo though if you
intend to use the logo as used in the theme.
~m
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
