Papirus-icon-theme: License problem

[yangfl]

Hi,

I'd like to pack this icon theme into Debian. However, they pointed out that your work contain sources which is GPL-3 and CC-BY-SA-4 (like that in Papirus-Adapta-Nokto/AUTHORS), that means this repo has to be GPL-3, not LGPL-3. They suggest either convert to GPL-3 and mention it in README.md, or figure out which ones are your original works, so that it will not violate the licenses.

Please considering fixing it.

[VentGrey]

I've seen some icons that are imported from the paper icon theme which in fact is a theme licenced with the CC-BY-SA-4.

As far as I know you could point on your debian/copyright file which .svg files have a different licence, in this case images for both paper & other icon theme i cannot recognize, the remaining images (the ones made by the papirus team) can be marked as LGPL-3.

Also if it concerns I think that the current LGPL version is compatible with the GPL-3 Licence
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

[varlesh]

Papirus icon theme based on Paper icon theme.
Paper licensed CC-BY-SA-4:
https://github.com/snwh/paper-icon-theme#copying-or-reusing

Paper is licenced under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. When reusing this work be sure to include a proper attribution:

"Paper Icons" by Sam Hewitt is licensed under CC-SA-4.0

Software that is included is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License

We use lecense LGPL, because it's rule Paper icon theme developer.

[varlesh]

What you mean convert? I'm not understand you...

[VentGrey]

By convert he suggests a license change in this case from LGPL-3 to GPL-3

[varlesh]

I'm not author Paper icon theme. I can't doing this.

[varlesh]

@SmartFinn Привет Сереж... По сути LGPL отличается же только линковкой на блобы и не представляет никаких гарантий... Но мы же собственно вообще не имеем никаких блобов, у нас код открыт полностью.
Реально ли вообще провести аудит исходного кода Paper и Papirus и в случае повторяемости поменять его (ну ты знаешь, группировка объектов, оконтуривание и т.д. способов много). Т.е. избавиться Paper вообще. Собственно мы имеем на это право, так как перлопатили уже тонну значков. Тут исходников, то наверн уже нет. Или забить на Debian и прочее FSF?

[SmartFinn]

@varlesh Привет!

Такой подход очень странный и более неуважительный к автору чем просто проигнорировать рекомендацию и просто перевести все в GPL-3.0, как сообственно делают с нашими форками.

[varlesh]

@VentGrey I really don't know violate this rules and licensig Paper developer if we convert project to GPL-3.

CC-BY-SA-4 > LGPL-3 > GPL-3

We not have bllobs or proieatary libs. All our files conyained on SVG and have source code (with the exception preview images with PNG's)

But Paper initially - it's PNG icon theme. But sources available

[varlesh]

@SmartFinn Нет, я не про это. Собственно, лицензия CC-BY-SA-4 может быть сконвертированна в GPL-3. Но разраб Paper разрешил ее размещать в LGPL-3, видимо по тому что тема содержит PNG. Но у нас же их нет. И получается чем мы должны руководствоваться - правилом разраба или правилом совместимости лицензий?

[varlesh]

Такой подход очень странный и более неуважительный к автору чем просто проигнорировать рекомендацию и просто перевести все в GPL-3.0, как сообственно делают с нашими форками.

Я же не говорю убрать имя разраба Paper из AUTHORS. Он там как был так и будет. Тут речь про лицензирование и код вообще. Если мы поменяем код и он не будет совпадать с кодом Paper, то мы независимы будем от лицензий вообще и можем хоть MIT влепить.
Если ты заметил, то я все продукты, которые созданы лично мной, выкладываю под GPL всегда. И указываю авторов всегда (если откуда что-то где-то взял).

[SmartFinn]

@varlesh логично что правилами самих лицензий. Главная цель сооблюсти требования CC-BY-SA-4. Упоминание LGPL-3.0 виглядит и является только рекомендацией, т.к. никакой юр. силы она не несет.

[VentGrey]

@yangfl Was the one who reported the licence issue, however it seems that license in this case doesn't affect much:

Other developers can borrow and modify the code and re-distribute it as part of their own project, provided that the portion used under the LGPL is re-licensed under the LGPL. Other portions of the project are permitted have other licenses. This allows the code to be used in otherwise proprietary software.
Source: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1114045/gpl-and-lgpl-open-source-licensing-restrictions

I still suggest that @yangfl separates paper elements from papirus elements in the debian/copyright file.

[yangfl]

@varlesh I'm afraid in fact your LGPL-3 is incompatible with CC-BY-SA-4. See https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/creative-commons-by-sa-4-0-declared-one-way-compatible-with-gnu-gpl-version-3

[yangfl]

@VentGrey That's the suggestion no.2, but how can I tell which ones came from paper elements, with thousands of icons?
Even in this situation, bundling them together may be still illegal.

[varlesh]

Ok, i'm ask about that on Paper developer.

@snwh We can change license from LGPL-3 to GPL-3 for Papirus icon theme?

[varlesh]

@varlesh I'm afraid in fact your LGPL-3 is incompatible with CC-BY-SA-4. See https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/creative-commons-by-sa-4-0-declared-one-way-compatible-with-gnu-gpl-version-3

See this https://github.com/snwh/paper-icon-theme#copying-or-reusing

[VentGrey]

See this https://github.com/snwh/paper-icon-theme#copying-or-reusing

If you mean where he says:

Software that is included is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License

I think he meant the scripts included in the repository.

[yangfl]

@varlesh The second statement looks like being pasted by mistake, and their https://github.com/snwh/paper-icon-theme/blob/master/LICENSE only contain CC-BY-SA-4.

Debian guys want a clear and unambiguous statement. My first attempt of packing has already been rejected.

[varlesh]

I think he meant the scripts included in the repository.

You think, but really don't know this. Maybe it's distributed for other files. PNG's for example - it's not source code file.

Nevertheless Papirus not use blobs, propietary libs or PNG's (for preview only). Our all files have open source code and avilable.

Yes i know, CC-BY-SA-4 compability with GPL-3, but i'm I follow rule Paper developer :

Software that is included is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License

Sorry guys, it's really confused for me. I wait @snwh
Him copying or reusing recommendation use LGPL or rule distribution.

[snwh]

For the sake of simplicity, it's alright with me if you relicense (so long as you retain the credit). Papirus doesn't reuse the PNG assets of Paper (which are the files under CC-BY-SA).

[yangfl]

@snwh Could you mention it in README.md (sth like "Paper Icons" by Sam Hewitt is licensed under CC-SA-4.0 or LGPL-3.0)? Thanks.

[snwh]

@yangfl Paper's readme does state its license info. The reference to GPL is for things like the included scripts, for example

[yangfl]

So, yes, with Paper's CC-BY-SA-4 papirus can't be just LGPL-3, otherwise it should explicitly marks out these from Paper.

[snwh]

@yangfl Papirus doesn't appear to be directly using any of Paper's CC-by-SA licensed assets anyway. I use CC-by-SA in Paper since it is largely image files (PNG) where the Creative Commons license makes most sense. The LGPL covers all else.

I'm not a stickler over licensing, just the credit. So feel free to do what you like with Papirus.

[varlesh]

@snwh Thx for info.

Ok we change license to GPL-3. We not contained closed scripts, libs and LGPL not good for us. All our files with open source code. Also we not use scripts from Paper project.
Sorry my English and I'm not a lawyer :)

[varlesh]

Info for mantainers: @JoshStrobl @dirkdavidis @KottV @gericom-hummer @edgard
We change LICENSE to GNU GPL v3 https://github.com/PapirusDevelopmentTeam/papirus-icon-theme/commit/2696de6c2142cb01fdf4e7896e06a9a7d4ad5a2c