gkrellm themes

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

Gene,

Apologies for the delayed reply. Please keep in mind that IANAL, I just
play one on TV.

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 17:36 -0400, Gene Czarcinski wrote:

> I assume all licenses in the "good" list are OK and all in the "bad" list are 
> not.

Yes, this is correct.

> Do you have a suggestion as to a "preferred" license for this kind of 
> stuff ... graphics and configuration files mostly.  I would really like to 
> get most folks to all use the same license (see below).

For graphics, you can safely use the licenses here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses_3

I would specifically recommend CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, as those provide the
most flexibility and the opportunity for derived art.

For configuration files, generally any permissive license should work.
You might avoid any license that is too software specific, but MIT
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style) might not be a
bad fit.

> Also, do you have any suggestions on how to handle cases where multiple 
> individuals have had their hand in things:  A creates a theme.  B then 
> modifies A's theme to create a new theme.  C comes along and modifies B's 
> theme plus add some stuff from a theme created by D to create yet another 
> theme.  That may sound convoluted but it appears to be the case for some of 
> these themes.

Well, in such a scenario, A, B, C, and D probably have made
copyrightable contributions to the work (the ABCD theme). Unless B, C,
and D have agreed to assign copyright to A (or some other single party),
they would all need to agree on the license for the work. This is a big
reason why it is important for anyone generating copyrightable content
to license that content. If A had put it under the CC-BY license, then
when B, C, and D made changes, their changes would be automatically
available under that license (note, this is not always true, but it is
in this specific scenario).

> I also assume that any theme citing Carsten Haitzler's (Rasterman's) 
> enlightenment window manager as a source is OK (I do not need that author's 
> blessing too).

You should see what license that Carsten's source content is under.
Assuming that the derived works do not have a license which conflicts
with Carsten's license, there should not be a need to get his blessing.
In the event where no license is defined on the new derived work, you
can safely assume the derived work inherits Carsten's license (but it
never hurts to ask the copyright holder who made the modifications for
his intention).

> I am not sure what will be needed in the SPEC file with respect to licensing 
> (since you are reviewing spec files).  I sure do not want to see a bunch of 
> theme packages ... one for every license type.  That is too much 
> over-achieving.

No, this should not be necessary. When you get to that point, I can help
you through it.

~spot