Dear list,
Can you help me identify license used by Batch icon set.
--- USAGE LICENSE:
You are free to use Batch (the "icon set") or any part thereof (the "icons") in any personal, open-source or commercial work without obligation of payment (monetary or otherwise) or attribution. Do not sell the icon set, host the icon set or rent the icon set (either in existing or modified form).
While attribution is optional, it is always appreciated.
Intellectual property rights are not transferred with the download of the icons.
EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL ADAM WHITCROFT BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE ICONS, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. ---
http://adamwhitcroft.com/batch/
Thank you in advance, Samuel Rakitničan
Can you help me identify license used by Batch icon set.
USAGE LICENSE:
You are free to use Batch (the "icon set") or any part thereof (the "icons") in any personal, open-source or commercial work without obligation of payment (monetary or otherwise) or attribution. Do not sell the icon set, host the icon set or rent the icon set (either in existing or modified form).
While attribution is optional, it is always appreciated.
Intellectual property rights are not transferred with the download of the icons.
EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL ADAM WHITCROFT BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE ICONS, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Do not sell the icon set, host the icon set or rent the icon set (either in existing or modified form).
That is apparent *nonfree* licence, probably a homebrew one, so it does not have any name.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 08:53:47PM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
You are free to use Batch (the "icon set") or any part thereof (the "icons") in any personal, open-source or commercial work without obligation of payment (monetary or otherwise) or attribution. Do not sell the icon set, host the icon set or rent the icon set (either in existing or modified form).
[...]
That is apparent *nonfree* licence, probably a homebrew one, so it does not have any name.
I'm saying this with no particular authority, but it seems to me that the two conflicting statements are meant to do something similar to the SIL Open Font License — allow the content to be used as part of a work but to forbid its sale _as a thing in itself_. See the FSF's comments here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#SILOFL
I'll leave it to legal to say whether they agree that that's the probably intent and whether it *works* like that.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 01:12:09PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 08:53:47PM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
You are free to use Batch (the "icon set") or any part thereof (the "icons") in any personal, open-source or commercial work without obligation of payment (monetary or otherwise) or attribution. Do not sell the icon set, host the icon set or rent the icon set (either in existing or modified form).
[...]
That is apparent *nonfree* licence, probably a homebrew one, so it does not have any name.
I'm saying this with no particular authority, but it seems to me that the two conflicting statements are meant to do something similar to the SIL Open Font License — allow the content to be used as part of a work but to forbid its sale _as a thing in itself_. See the FSF's comments here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#SILOFL
I'll leave it to legal to say whether they agree that that's the probably intent and whether it *works* like that.
Let's not forget SunRPC: http://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html
Richard
You are free to use Batch (the "icon set") or any part thereof (the "icons") in any personal, open-source or commercial work without obligation of payment (monetary or otherwise) or attribution. Do not sell the icon set, host the icon set or rent the icon set (either in existing or modified form).
[...]
That is apparent *nonfree* licence, probably a homebrew one, so it does not have any name.
I'm saying this with no particular authority
Neither do I, of course.
but it seems to me that the two conflicting statements
I’m afraid, I cannot see any conflicting statements here. Do you mean that ‘commercial’ should be read as ‘sale’? There are many pretty valid commercial activities that are possible with a piece of software besides selling or renting it to someone, and I cannot not a reason why a proprietor of a nonfree software might not wish to forbid only these two.
(And otherwise: does the word ‘sale’ by itself imply solely commercial basis in the USA?)
are meant to do something similar to the SIL Open Font License — allow the content to be used as part of a work but to forbid its sale _as a thing in itself_.
It might be worth noting, that SIL OFL explicitly *allows* selling a font accompanied by another work:
| 2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled, | redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy | contains the above copyright notice and this license. These can be | included either as stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or | in the appropriate machine-readable metadata fields within text or | binary files as long as those fields can be easily viewed by the user.
I'll leave it to legal to say whether they agree that that's the probably intent and whether it *works* like that.
If that is a homebrew licence, the best thing to do, I suppose, would be to request clarifications from authors of the icon set. Thankfully, there are only couple of them, as I can see.
That is apparent *nonfree* licence, probably a homebrew one, so it does not have any name.
Is this a problem?
These icons and few others (which I don't know where they come from) are included in MultiMC [1] as a theme changeable at runtime under settings. I know about this particular set because it is included in COPYING.md file.
[1] https://github.com/MultiMC/MultiMC5/tree/0.6.0/application/resources
On 01/17/2018 02:50 PM, Samuel Rakitničan wrote:
That is apparent *nonfree* licence, probably a homebrew one, so it does not have any name.
Is this a problem?
These icons and few others (which I don't know where they come from) are included in MultiMC [1] as a theme changeable at runtime under settings. I know about this particular set because it is included in COPYING.md file.
No files under that license should be in Fedora.
~tom
On 17 January 2018 at 16:56, Samuel Rakitničan srakitnican@fedoraproject.org wrote:
No files under that license should be in Fedora.
~tom
Well, it is bundled with main binary, I am assuming this counts as well. What about the sources tarball, is it needed to prune it from there as well?
For other software it has to have been done.
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 01/17/2018 02:17 AM, Samuel Rakitničan wrote:
Dear list,
Can you help me identify license used by Batch icon set.
USAGE LICENSE:
You are free to use Batch (the "icon set") or any part thereof (the "icons") in any personal, open-source or commercial work without obligation of payment (monetary or otherwise) or attribution. Do not sell the icon set, host the icon set or rent the icon set (either in existing or modified form).
While attribution is optional, it is always appreciated.
Intellectual property rights are not transferred with the download of the icons.
EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL ADAM WHITCROFT BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE ICONS, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
This license is non-free.
A) Restrictions on selling the icon set. B) No permission to modify the icon set. C) No permission to distribute the icon set (and explicit restrictions on "host"ing it)
~tom
-
Dmitry Alexandrov -
Matthew Miller -
Richard Fontana -
Samuel Rakitničan -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Tom Callaway