httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <>
Subject Re: Oxygen icons for Apache
Date Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:38:06 GMT
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 Apache's current icons are a bit out-of-date, so I've created a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.

View raw message