httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Javier Llorente <>
Subject Re: Oxygen icons for Apache
Date Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:24:57 GMT
On Wednesday 21 April 2010 22:38:06 you wrote:
> On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Javier Llorente wrote:
> > On Wednesday 21 April 2010 20:12:00 William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> >> On 4/21/2010 11:37 AM, Javier Llorente wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 21 April 2010 17:50:41 Rich Bowen wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Javier Llorente wrote:
> >>>>> Apache's current icons are a bit out-of-date, so I've created a
> >>>>> collection of
> >>>>> icons for Apache; it has oxygen+crystal+custom icons, a config file
> >>>>> and a
> >>>>> README.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps it could be included in Apache, so that sys admins have
> >>>>> another option
> >>>>>
> >>>>> :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can see it live at
> >>>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> Am I correct in understanding that you're donating these to the Apache
> >>>> HTTP Server project, or that they're under a license that permits us
> >>>> to redistribute them?
> >>>
> >>> Oops I forgot. It's under the LGPL. I am not sure if it's compatible
> >>> with Apache's licensing policy.
> >>
> >> Well, that's not happening then, but thanks for your enthusiasm :)
> >
> > I have used some LGPL'ed icons. However, from my understanding of the
> > LGPL, I could change the license of my collection to make it compatible;
> >
> > Quoting from
> >
> > 4. Combined Works.
> >
> > You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken
> > together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the
> > Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for
> > debugging such modifications, if you also do each of the following:
> >
> >     * a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that
> > the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
> > this License.
> >     * b) Accompany the Combined Work with a copy of the GNU GPL and this
> > license document.
> > [...]
> First; works won't be accepted with a[ny] GPL license [AGPL, LGPL, GPL
>  etc]. The existence of two license files in the source repository would be
>  confusing and misleading to the user, where the ASF has chosen to
>  distribute the code strictly under one (non-copyleft) election among
>  multiple licenses offered.
> Second; the ASF will not combine source code works.  The combination you
>  quote above that can and do inevitably happen with the use of ASF works
>  when used in combination with copyleft works is left to the user's
>  discretion and for the user to decipher and comply with (in terms of their
>  net responsibilities under the combined licenses).  This paragraph deals
>  with, for example, SuSE's choice to combine Apache httpd with your icon
>  collection.
> Now, the ASF is happy to consider contributions under the Apache License,
>  or any license which does not add additional restrictions (e.g. copyleft
>  clauses) or subtract any rights (e.g. non-commercial use only clauses)
>  when added into the Apache License of the combined work.  For example, the
>  BSD license, sans advertising requirement, satisfies this consideration.
> The choice of license here is interesting; because your work should
>  necessarily always be conveyed in source code (e.g. an image
>  representation) that is transmitted to all end users (e.g. as broadly as
>  the AGPL would require) there is really no difference between licensing
>  these icons in BSD, AL, or LGPL. Licensing in GPL or AGPL would of course
>  add further requirements with respect to the source code of the entire
>  work.  The only right you lose in offering a more flexible BSD or AL,
>  rather than LGPL, is the redistribution with reuse license requirement of
>  any modified icons if someone based a set of icons on your original art.
> So if these are your own originala works, and you have not conveyed all
>  copyright to another party (e.g. the FSF) - but retain the right to convey
>  licenses yourself, and you would like to offer these under an Apache
>  License to the ASF, we would be glad to continue the discussion of
>  accepting such an offer.

Here's a more detailed explanation of my situation:

I have hand picked some Oxygen icons, adapted (modified) some Oxygen and 
Crystal icons, and created the configuration & README. 

The Oxygen icons are under both LGPL and CC-by-SA
"Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may 
distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible 

It seems to me that the cc-by-sa is ok in this case. I could re-license my 
collection to have it under the Apache license.

The Crystal icons are under the LGPL (only, no dual licensing from what I've 
read). So I understand that here lies the problem. I could look for a solution 
like replacing them (they're just a few).

Another possibility could be having distributions (if they choose to do so) 
shipping Apache with this collection of icons enabled by default. But I prefer 
contributing my grain of salt upstream so that anyone can use it, regardless 
of the distribution.

BTW, thanks a lot for you explanation on licensing :)

Javier Llorente

View raw message