Re: Icon

["Andreas K. Foerster" <list@...>]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:10:08AM +0200, Philippe Lhoste wrote:

> On 25/07/2010 21:52, Andreas K. Foerster wrote:
> >>>But it has a quite nasty license...
> >
> >No modifications allowed
> 
> Usually, when you make an official logo for an organization or
> corporation, you don't want it altered... (in proportions, colors,
> etc.).
> It is not a license about source code, but about a design.

Well, I read the PostScript Code, and it is made up like a Copyright
license to the code, not like a trademark license, which is what
you probably mean.

By the way, trademark licenses also can be a big issue for Free Software
projects. See Iceweasel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceweasel>.
And the license in the PostScript file also clearly is not compatible with
Free Software.

> Now, I have seen "derivatives" of the logo, mostly changing the
> curved "The programming language" to something else.

Well, that is actually the only allowed exception in the license.
The "orbiting text" is also in a variable, so it's made easy to change it.

> Actually, looking again at the http://www.lua.org/images/ page, I
> see they encourage such customization.

But only that specific change, nothing else is allowed.

> But I find natural to
> prohibit to reuse the logo by replacing Lua with something else, or
> put the moon on the left and claiming it is your design, etc.

"Claiming it is your design" is someting completely different alltogether.
No Free Software license allows that. Copyright notices always have to
be preserved and modifications often have to be marked as such (for example
see GPLv3 section 5a).
But changes must be allowed, or else it is not compatible with Free Software.


So I'm a little confused, whether this license covers only the PostScript
source code, or the design of the logo.

A Windows icon of the logo is also in the package of Lua-5.1.4 in the 
directory etc/. The README in that directory states: "This directory 
contains some useful files and code. Unlike the code in ../src, everything 
here is in the public domain." So either the license in the PostScript
file doesn't cover the design or both license notices contradict each other.

So I ask for clarification.

-- 
AKFoerster