Herbert Fortes <hpfn@ig.com.br> (2016-07-05): > I am doing a QA for dvbackup[0]. It is an old package, > but does not has a repository, so I will copy/paste. > > [0] - https://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dvbackup.html > > Files: logo.xcf > minilogo.ppm > minilogo.c > Copyright: Larry Ewing <lewing@isc.tamu.edu> > License: > Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided with > acknowledgement of Larry Ewing <lewing@isc.tamu.edu> and The GIMP. > > Declared 'use and/or modify' only. > > The files do not have an author field or something like > that. You only know that Gimp was used. It is a Tux logo. > > I do not think this is problem because of Gimp and the > Tux logo, but shouldn't licenses be more clear and declare > 'free distribution' in an explicit way ? Ideally, yeah. This can be somewhat inferred from the following quote: "Feel free to do whatever you see fit with the images, you are encouraged to integrate them into other designs that fit your need." See: http://isc.tamu.edu/~lewing/linux/ See also previous thread on this very list about what “use” can mean (spoiler alert: it's open to interpretation). KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature