43 replies to this topic 1 votes

[tim_s]

.Neo, on 21 February 2013 - 20:51, said:

Fair enough. I still find the whole thing questionable since KDE took quite a few ideas from Windows Aero.

It is not questionable, this is a person or group who found that Sony used a KDE image. KDE has not taken any action according to the information.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Javik, on 21 February 2013 - 20:41, said:

Images would set an interesting legal precedent... how does one provide the source code for an image?

I'm sure they could provide the binary breakdown of it.

[z0phi3l]

Javik, on 21 February 2013 - 20:51, said:

I was of the opinion that most artwork included with open source projects like Linux distributions was free for use and redistribution?

You still have to give credit and follow any other conditions of the license since there's different clauses for commercial and private uses, it's not a free for all and anarchy in the FOSS world, no matter what the media says

[Javik]

.Neo, on 21 February 2013 - 20:51, said:

Fair enough. I still find the whole thing questionable since KDE took quite a few ideas from Windows Aero.

It's irrelevant. Adobe gave their permission for that image to be used, the permission of the KDE developers asked. Usually I tend to find Linux developers are pretty good where sharing their creations are concerned. As for the other point you made... so what? Very few pieces of software as complex as a Linux window manager or operating system will be built without using some of the competition's ideas it's just the way computing works.

z0phi3l, on 21 February 2013 - 20:56, said:

You still have to give credit and follow any other conditions of the license since there's different clauses for commercial and private uses, it's not a free for all and anarchy in the FOSS world, no matter what the media says

Understood, I understand the basics of how the GPL works but in truth I rarely read licensing agreements

[.Neo]

tim_s, on 21 February 2013 - 20:53, said:

It is not questionable, this is a person or group who found that Sony used a KDE image. KDE has not taken any action according to the information.

I wasn't pointing a finger at KDE. I find the complaint in general questionable.

Javik, on 21 February 2013 - 20:56, said:

As for the other point you made... so what? Very few pieces of software as complex as a Linux window manager or operating system will be built without using some of the competition's ideas it's just the way computing works.

Right, and if that's how computing works you can ask yourself whether you should make a big fuss about an icon being used on a fairly low-profile part of a third-party website. Surely if KDE can "borrow" major parts of the Windows Aero experience Sony can "borrow" an icon. You take some, you loose some.

[n_K]

.Neo, on 21 February 2013 - 20:56, said:

I wasn't pointing a finger at KDE. I find the complaint in general questionable.

Well not really, if I went and slapped the windows logo on something I sell without permission, I'd expect to be sued.

[Javik]

It's just the opinion of a third party. Judging KDE's position before they voice it is a bit foolish would you not agree?

[.Neo]

Javik, on 21 February 2013 - 20:59, said:

It's just the opinion of a third party. Judging KDE's position before they voice it is a bit foolish would you not agree?

I'm responding to the opinion of said third party. I'm not judging KDE's currently non-existent official position in any way.

[Tyler R.]

.Neo, on 21 February 2013 - 20:51, said:

Fair enough. I still find the whole thing questionable since KDE took quite a few ideas from Windows Aero.

KDE had Aero before Windows did. KDE 4.0 (released 2006...Vista was 2007 if I remember right) had Aero like boarders. Compiz (the window decorator) has been around, in one form or another since the early 00's.

[ichi]

Fus10n, on 21 February 2013 - 19:22, said:

^^ Not when you are profiting from it

Whether you profit or not is irrelevant. There's no distinction in the license between redistributing for money or for free: you either have a license to redistribute (if you abide by the license terms) or you don't.

[Astra.Xtreme]

n_K, on 21 February 2013 - 20:58, said:

Well not really, if I went and slapped the windows logo on something I sell without permission, I'd expect to be sued.

That's different though since the Windows logo is legally trademarked. This KDE artwork probably isn't.
Ethically it's wrong, but legally it's probably not.

[+Fus10n]

TurboShrimp, on 21 February 2013 - 19:25, said:

its silly over just an icon.

if you visit Linux mint website you don't see them saying " hey thanks Ubuntu "

or UBUNTU under the hood . lol

if so you really need to search the site to find out.

point is its silly and either side is making money from it



do you have a source that shows how much money sony has made from the use of that icon ?

lmfao.. they are using their work on their website to sell laptops.. no different than someone using a song on a commercial without playing the artist.

[.Neo]

Tyler R., on 21 February 2013 - 21:12, said:

KDE had Aero before Windows did. KDE 4.0 (released 2006...Vista was 2007 if I remember right) had Aero like boarders. Compiz (the window decorator) has been around, in one form or another since the early 00's.

KDE 4.0 was released in 2008.

[Shadrack]

TurboShrimp, on 21 February 2013 - 19:16, said:

wait I thought Linux was all about open source , free to edit / change / pass along ect.. ect..

Artwork is not necessarily "open source".

[sanctified]

Shadrack, on 22 February 2013 - 00:19, said:

Artwork is not necessarily "open source".

Yes it is. Every resource created for a GNU licensed project should be GNU too.

Anyone can use it freely IF FULL CREDIT IS GIVEN.