The sane solution if one wants to play fairly is to create a licenses page on the webpage or app and mention the source of the icons and other OS software used.
This way you are acknowledging the license and you distribute it too with the copy.
This is how the YouTube app does it for example on Android. Settings/About/OS licenses.
Given the actual condition being imposed on users of MIT/Expat-licensed assets:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
I'm failing to see what the hold-up is here.
- If it's an SVG file, what's wrong with including the license text as a comment?
- If it's a raster image, what's wrong with including the license text in the metadata?
The way I'm reading this, as long as the license text is somehow embedded in the asset - whether or not it's actually visible to someone viewing it as an image - then that fulfills the terms of the license, no?
If such an embedded license is sufficient, then I fail to see what the problem is. Is it just file size? Are these people really so averse to content creators being credited for their work that said consumers of said works consider embedded attribution/licensing unacceptable (and why)?
If such an embedded license is not sufficient, then why is it insufficient?
Obligatory: I ain't a lawyer. Given the sorts of quibbling that seems to be happening over a three-paragraph license that's ubiquitous in the world of software, I don't envy the actual lawyers one bit.
The stated purpose of the project is "Icons under 1KB each". So embedding a 1KB license in each one would defeat the purpose.
Even if file size is not the main goal, embedding metadata could be self-defeating in other ways. If the license requires making the license available to end-users, would that prevent the use of asset pipeline optimization tools? (The motivation for using a permissive license is often to enable compatibility with general-purpose tools.) If the license only requires making the license available to maintainers, then why embed it in the first place?
Complying with the MIT license by including it in each SVG file would defeat the stated purpose of "SuperTinyIcons" - to consume very few bytes - by ~tripling the file size of each icon.
The icons are ~500 bytes - the license is over 1 kilobyte.
I run this repo, but didn't open the comment. Curious to know why others think.
I chose MIT out of laziness, and because that's what done of the source files were using. I've never heard of the "Blue Oak" licence the comment refers to.
Lots of people and companies have contributed to the icon set over the last couple of years without issue.
I'm of the opinion that having an acknowledgements section of an app / website is sufficient.
I suppose I could add some metadata to each file, but that would inflate most of them to over 1KB.
Please if you are working/setting licenses, make sure it's not just an opinion and that there's enough data/you do enough research to back it up. As explained in many sites, MIT for code, CC for art.
How can these be licensed in any way, when the artwork is of trademarked logos? Genuine question. Aren't you entirely relying on the fact that the owners of the copyright of the logos benefits from your use and are unlikely to chase? I mean, if I decided my project was compatible with Coca-Cola and slapped the Coke logo on it, they'd come after me, no? Even if I had redrawn the logo myself.
Trademark is different from copyright in that you can have a trademarked logo on your webpage (or in any other work) as long as you aren’t implying association with the owner of the mark. Trademark owners can’t come after you for, say, writing a scathing critique of their product that includes their logo for reference. But they can come after you if you add their logo to a list of “companies using this library!” without their permission.
There are tons of questions I admittedly have about why reality shows blur out logos (I imagine they’re avoiding creating the impression that a brand has endorsed the crazy stuff happening on the show through product placement) and why developers can include the github logo in reference to the github repo for a project when neither the author nor the project are associated with the github brand (my guess is that there’s a carve-out for that sort of thing, since github wants people to do this as much as possible).
my understanding is that BSD, MIT, and CC0 can basically be thought of as quitclaim deeds. They only apply to any interest the creator might have had. NO WARRANTY, USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.
I agree with the spirit of your comment (CC makes sense for SVGs), but I also don't think it's quite as simple as content vs. code. there are many icon sets that are distributed as font binaries, for example, which are software; in which case the OFL (SIL open font license -- https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id...) might make more sense.
[+] [-] tiborsaas|6 years ago|reply
This way you are acknowledging the license and you distribute it too with the copy.
This is how the YouTube app does it for example on Android. Settings/About/OS licenses.
[+] [-] 8ig8|6 years ago|reply
Along the lines of: security.txt, robots.txt, humans.txt.
[+] [-] jhabdas|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukeholder|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w-ll|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhabdas|6 years ago|reply
https://github.com/gilbarbara/logos/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
[+] [-] quickthrower2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VvR-Ox|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ComputerGuru|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yellowapple|6 years ago|reply
- If it's an SVG file, what's wrong with including the license text as a comment?
- If it's a raster image, what's wrong with including the license text in the metadata?
The way I'm reading this, as long as the license text is somehow embedded in the asset - whether or not it's actually visible to someone viewing it as an image - then that fulfills the terms of the license, no?
If such an embedded license is sufficient, then I fail to see what the problem is. Is it just file size? Are these people really so averse to content creators being credited for their work that said consumers of said works consider embedded attribution/licensing unacceptable (and why)?
If such an embedded license is not sufficient, then why is it insufficient?
Obligatory: I ain't a lawyer. Given the sorts of quibbling that seems to be happening over a three-paragraph license that's ubiquitous in the world of software, I don't envy the actual lawyers one bit.
[+] [-] myhf|6 years ago|reply
The stated purpose of the project is "Icons under 1KB each". So embedding a 1KB license in each one would defeat the purpose.
Even if file size is not the main goal, embedding metadata could be self-defeating in other ways. If the license requires making the license available to end-users, would that prevent the use of asset pipeline optimization tools? (The motivation for using a permissive license is often to enable compatibility with general-purpose tools.) If the license only requires making the license available to maintainers, then why embed it in the first place?
[+] [-] larrysalibra|6 years ago|reply
The icons are ~500 bytes - the license is over 1 kilobyte.
[+] [-] edent|6 years ago|reply
I chose MIT out of laziness, and because that's what done of the source files were using. I've never heard of the "Blue Oak" licence the comment refers to.
Lots of people and companies have contributed to the icon set over the last couple of years without issue.
I'm of the opinion that having an acknowledgements section of an app / website is sufficient.
I suppose I could add some metadata to each file, but that would inflate most of them to over 1KB.
[+] [-] franciscop|6 years ago|reply
Please if you are working/setting licenses, make sure it's not just an opinion and that there's enough data/you do enough research to back it up. As explained in many sites, MIT for code, CC for art.
[+] [-] sago|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Uehreka|6 years ago|reply
Trademark is different from copyright in that you can have a trademarked logo on your webpage (or in any other work) as long as you aren’t implying association with the owner of the mark. Trademark owners can’t come after you for, say, writing a scathing critique of their product that includes their logo for reference. But they can come after you if you add their logo to a list of “companies using this library!” without their permission.
There are tons of questions I admittedly have about why reality shows blur out logos (I imagine they’re avoiding creating the impression that a brand has endorsed the crazy stuff happening on the show through product placement) and why developers can include the github logo in reference to the github repo for a project when neither the author nor the project are associated with the github brand (my guess is that there’s a carve-out for that sort of thing, since github wants people to do this as much as possible).
[+] [-] tingletech|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quitclaim_deed
Also, my understanding is they only cover copyright, not any patent or trademark rights.
[+] [-] hardmaru|6 years ago|reply
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/
[+] [-] tribby|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metaphor|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wodenokoto|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhabdas|6 years ago|reply