Powertoys: Hi everybody! May you add a Creative Commons License for logo?

[ks7000]

Hello to all!

May you add a Creative Commons License for logo?
(obviously I can't make a pull request for it, I am not the owner)

With all due respect for indierawk2k2, just for edit the corresponding article at Wikipedia, we "need" one of this licenses:

https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
_or_
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

(the MIT license is for code, we talk about artistic elements)
Thanks for your attention!

Note: if you feel that our request is inappropriate please let us know and we will remove our commentary, no hard feelings for that!

[jaimecbernardo]

Hi @ks7000 ,
Would https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ for the logo work for you?

[ks7000]

Thanks for your attention! Just for Wikipedia don't work because «no Derivative», but «commercially» is fine!

(By the way, I am working at Wikipedia castilian language -> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PowerToys ).

[jaimecbernardo]

Hi @ks7000 ,

Under what license are the other Microsoft software logos that are used on Wikipedia pages?

[ks7000]

Hi there! In example, the Windows 10 logo is a barely copy (a fake) from original:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Windows10Logo.png

This image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD#Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information

-All info about licensing for images at Wikipedia-

Very thanks for your time!

[jaimecbernardo]

I see.
I have no authority to say whether or not this makes sense, or if this is allowed, but why is the PowerToys logo different? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Simple_design

[ks7000]

The answer to your question is just before you reach the section you indicate:

The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is not practical for most content, especially for printed media, because it requires that they be published along with the full text of the license. Thus, it is preferable to publish the work with a dual license, adding to the GFDL a license that permits use of the photo or text easily; a _Creative Commons license_, for example. Also, do not use the GPL and LGPL licenses as the only license for your own works if it can be avoided, as they are not really suitable for anything but software.

(The formatted text above is mine, text taken exactly from here).

Indeed, this project («_why is the PowerToys logo different?_» because) has the license MIT not GFDL, not GPL, not LGPL; so, let's read carefully such license:

_The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software._

So... that is the same problem with GFDL, GPL and LGPL!: all text must be included with the image(s).

_By the way, I take this opportunity to congratulate the programming team for having chosen a much better license than any other license, a very open license._

Thanks for your attention!

[jaimecbernardo]

Thanks for the details. I'm currently trying to understand the details.

I tried looking on Wikipedia for what other MIT projects might be doing in regards to this, and it seems that some have MIT-licensed logos, as well.
Here's an example from castillan language Wikipedia:

• https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_(motor_gr%C3%A1fico)
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torque_ge.png

It seems that having the MIT license in the file details was sufficient for this specific case.

[ks7000]

Sincerily thanks, I learned today.

This file is licensed under the Expat License, sometimes known as the MIT License: