This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: SVG version of GDB mascot (archer fish)
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: brobecker at adacore dot com, gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:08:16 +0100
- Subject: Re: SVG version of GDB mascot (archer fish)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=palves at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com B5BDFC04B92A
- References: <m31smuzp4n.fsf@oc1027705133.ibm.com> <20170925222843.n74fdmen4fygs4si@adacore.com> <3105e71c-9eab-fa68-6cb1-63ef9e0cdbb9@redhat.com> <m3r2uty9nm.fsf@oc1027705133.ibm.com> <83efqp8ztc.fsf@gnu.org>
On 09/29/2017 01:16 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, gdb@sourceware.org
>> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 13:35:57 +0200
>>
>> Since the SVG is strongly based on the original drawing,
>> it seems to me that we can not choose the license independently. The
>> original fish is licensed as "CC BY-SA 3.0 US":
>>
>> http://www.bluebutton.com/misc/archer.comment
>>
>> So I assume that the SVG version has to be licensed in the same way. In
>> my patch I'll update the "mascot" page with the licensing information
>> and a link to the license
>> (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/).
>
> FWIW, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#OtherLicenses
> only mentions CC BY-SA 4.0, so I think we should first find out
> whether version 3.0 is GPL-compatible.
>
Note that:
- we've been using the original image with CC BY-SA 3 for
many years, so that would not be a new problem.
- the website is not GPL, AFAIK. All pages end with:
"Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted
in any medium, provided this notice is preserved."
But in any case, I agree that it's good to upgrade the license to
avoid questions if we ever want to combine it with GPLv3 sources.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves