Hello all, after playing with a few other distros and even OpenSolaris, I noticed most packagers of GNOME customize the icon used in the GNOME menu bar (<size>/places/start-here.{svg,png}). Since I really like subtle non-intrusive customizations, I grabbed the official Gentoo matagama-like G SVG, and made all the required resolutions in PNG as well as making the SVG smaller, and made all these installed only if the USE flag “branding” is used on the x11-themes/gnome-icon-theme ebuilds. I prepared both version 2.24.0 and 2.26.0. On my computer, the icon tar goes into files/, but I guess if made official, should go in distfiles/ instead, so the ebuilds would need to be changed a little. Hope you’ll find this patch useful and want to adopt it. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
Created attachment 210331 [details, diff] Added “branding” IUSE to 2.26.0
Created attachment 210333 [details, diff] Adds “branding” IUSE to 2.24.0
Created attachment 210335 [details, diff] Adds “branding” IUSE to 2.26.0 Sorry, I forgot to strip an absolute path from the earlier submission of this same file.
Created attachment 210338 [details] Gentoo-branded icon set. File needed by both gnome-icon-theme-2.24.0.ebuild and gnome-icon-theme-2.26.0.ebuild, contains SVG and PNG images replacing places/start-here.
I will probably implement this but with a different (and tangoized) iconset. Rest of Gnome team, I would try to do the same as I am already doing in x11-themes/gnome-colors-common, then, simply check that ebuild and, if something is wrong, please let me know. If nobody disagrees, I will try to do this at the end of next week or so (reporter, if I forgot after that, please ping me)
(In reply to comment #5) > I will probably implement this but with a different (and tangoized) iconset. > Rest of Gnome team, I would try to do the same as I am already doing in > x11-themes/gnome-colors-common, then, simply check that ebuild and, if > something is wrong, please let me know. > > If nobody disagrees, I will try to do this at the end of next week or so > (reporter, if I forgot after that, please ping me) Good to know. If you need any help with that, just let me know.
Created attachment 241257 [details, diff] Adds “branding” IUSE to 2.28.0 I noticed just now that I forgot to upload this...
Created attachment 241259 [details, diff] Adds “branding” IUSE to 2.30.3 ...and now I can also add this, since I switched to GNOME 2.30 and had a few minutes to port the patch and the tarball to this newer version.
Created attachment 241261 [details] Gentoo-branded icon replacements And this is the new icon replacements tarball, for use with >=2.30 . Any chances to see this making it into the tree? :)
I would still prefer tangoized version if possible (that was created for this purpose), but, at first, I need trustees opinion about what needs to be done before using it (in a "legal" point of view)
(In reply to comment #10) > I would still prefer tangoized version if possible (that was created for this > purpose), but, at first, I need trustees opinion about what needs to be done > before using it (in a "legal" point of view) > It was approved at our last meeting; http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/motions/index.xml Full Log; http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/minutes/2010/20100815_trustees_meeting_log.txt
Great! Thanks a lot, will take care of it as soon as I have enough time for that
(In reply to comment #12) > Great! Thanks a lot, will take care of it as soon as I have enough time for > that > @pacho can we close this? thanks
(In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > Great! Thanks a lot, will take care of it as soon as I have enough time for > > that > > > @pacho can we close this? thanks > No since, sadly, I didn't have time for fixing original bug on gnome-icon-theme, but trustees can be un-CCed now Thanks and best regards
Hey, I’m still here, if there’s something I can help with.
+*gnome-icon-theme-2.91.0 (04 Jan 2011) + + 04 Jan 2011; Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> +gnome-icon-theme-2.91.0.ebuild: + Version bump with upstream fixes, also provides a tangoized Gentoo icon (bug + #293309). +
You are aware that the CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 license is generally considered non-free? See for example here: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/05/msg00092.html>
(In reply to comment #17) > You are aware that the CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 license is generally considered > non-free? See for example here: > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/05/msg00092.html> > No, but, what am I supposed to do then? It's used only with USE branding, then, people wanting to not use that license will be able to simply merge it without that USE flag (I have used that license as it was the elected one by trustees)
(In reply to comment #18) > It's used only with USE branding, [...] AFAIK, you can't use any of the gnome profiles without installing gnome-icon-theme. And the branding is enabled by default via IUSE="+branding". It makes me feel uneasy that one of our profiles is no longer installable with an ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE" setting. > (I have used that license as it was the elected one by trustees) Hm, I wonder why x11-themes/gentoo-artwork is released under GPL-2 then.
(In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > It's used only with USE branding, [...] > > AFAIK, you can't use any of the gnome profiles without installing > gnome-icon-theme. And the branding is enabled by default via IUSE="+branding". > It makes me feel uneasy that one of our profiles is no longer installable with > an ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE" setting. > + 08 Jan 2011; Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> gnome-icon-theme-2.91.0.ebuild: + Don't enable branding per default as won't work for people using + ACCEPT_LICENSE=-* @FREE + > > (I have used that license as it was the elected one by trustees) > > Hm, I wonder why x11-themes/gentoo-artwork is released under GPL-2 then. > Will wait a bit for trustees opinion about the possibility of using a "more free" LICENSE for it :-/
(In reply to comment #20) > Will wait a bit for trustees opinion about the possibility of using a "more > free" LICENSE for it :-/ > ping :-)
Maybe we could leave this as-is :-/
(In reply to comment #20) > Will wait a bit for trustees opinion about the possibility of using a "more > free" LICENSE for it :-/ I really wonder why CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 was chosen. The logo is a trademark of the Foundation, so one would assume that the "Gentoo Name and Logo Usage Guidelines" apply, <http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml>. CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 looks like a half-baked solution to me, because it neither reflects these guidelines (so it doesn't really help to protect the trademark), nor is it a free license. And maybe it's even two separate issues that shouldn't be mixed: copyright or authors' rights on the one hand, and trademark on the other hand.
Read the log of the previous meeting where it was discussed. http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/minutes/2010/20100718_trustees_meeting_log.txt NeddySeagoon originally proposed CC-BY-ND http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ However, this means that the Gentoo logo could not included in ANY wallpapers or other creations, which is too restrictive. Ergo, we choose CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 as we wanted to make it possible to make transformative derivative works of the Gentoo G logo where doing so would not cause our trademark to enter the public domain. trustees: Should we update the name & logo page with noting that the Gentoo mark can be be used under the CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 license?
*** Bug 529664 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 536648 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Robin Johnson from comment #24) [...] > Ergo, we choose CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 as we wanted to make it possible to > make transformative derivative works of the Gentoo G logo where doing so > would not cause our trademark to enter the public domain. > > trustees: > Should we update the name & logo page with noting that the Gentoo mark can > be be used under the CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 license? Why is CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 not considered "FREE"? :|
Ah, ok, the debian link explained it ;) https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/05/msg00092.html Then, no idea what license could be used for Gentoo "G" logo :S
(In reply to Robin Johnson from comment #24) > Read the log of the previous meeting where it was discussed. > http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/minutes/2010/ > 20100718_trustees_meeting_log.txt > > NeddySeagoon originally proposed CC-BY-ND > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ > However, this means that the Gentoo logo could not included in ANY > wallpapers or other creations, which is too restrictive. > > Ergo, we choose CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 as we wanted to make it possible to > make transformative derivative works of the Gentoo G logo where doing so > would not cause our trademark to enter the public domain. Coming back to this. I would like to ask Trustees to reconsider their decision, for the following reasons: 1. Creative Commons have retired their Sampling-Plus licenses on 2011-09-12, see http://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses, or http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/28874 for more details. 2. CC-Sampling-Plus-1.0 is incompatible with most free licenses, including all versions of CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. Consider the following example: A Gentoo developer gives a talk at a conference, and licenses it under CC-BY-SA-3.0. The original image of the "g" logo is used on the title page, and a lightened version is used as page background. Now, since CC-Sampling-Plus-1.0 is incompatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0, the slides cannot be distributed at all. I doubt that this is the result which is desired in this scenario. (I was confronted with this problem in the past, and ended up using the vector version of the logo, instead of the superior blender version.) 3. As I already said in comment 23, two different legal tools are mixed here, namely copyright and trademark protection. Note that there are large corporations whose logo doesn't even meet the threshold of originality (i.e., it is in the public domain, as far as copyright is concerned) but the logo is protected as a trademark nevertheless. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:3M_wordmark.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deutsche_Bank_logo_without_wordmark.svg Apparently, these corporations don't think that the missing copyright protection of their logo would dilute their brand. 4. I doubt that having different licenses (namely CC-Sampling-Plus-1.0 and CC-BY-SA-2.5) for versions of the logo that have only slightly different visual appearance could help protecting the Gentoo brand. Someone who is using the vector version in violation of the Name and Logo Usage Guidelines could argue that these don't apply to the vector version, because the Gentoo Foundation itself makes a distinction between the two versions. Therefore, I'd rather see all versions of the "g" logo treated the same (and licensed under CC-BY-SA-2.5), with a clarification added to the Guidelines that these are only differently rendered versions of the same (trademarked) logo. Disclaimer: IANAL, TINAL.
Did the Trustees ever reply on this?
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #30) > Did the Trustees ever reply on this? The blue "g" logo and the red "gentoo" logo have been relicensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0. See 2016-12 meeting minutes (starting at 14:59:20): https://projects.gentoo.org/foundation/2016/meeting-20161218-log.txt
Does this mean that the package can be relicensed now?
Obviously.
That is, gnome-icon-theme-3.12.0.ebuild should be updated to: LICENSE="|| ( LGPL-3 CC-BY-SA-3.0 ) branding? ( CC-BY-SA-4.0 )" Also IUSE="+branding" could be restored as CC-BY-SA-4.0 is in @FREE.
Other likely candidates: gnome-base/gdm x11-themes/adwaita-icon-theme x11-themes/gnome-colors-common
commit c9b65c695de772a9a763728d5d3588f276035945 Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: Thu Apr 20 09:25:26 2017 Commit: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> CommitDate: Thu Apr 20 18:14:30 2017 gnome-base/gdm: Update Gentoo logo license, #293309 Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/4451 commit bf6a6c769788ad41161241e2ead5a3e3da9b0f93 Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: Thu Apr 20 09:24:37 2017 Commit: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> CommitDate: Thu Apr 20 18:14:30 2017 x11-themes/gnome-colors-common: Update Gentoo logo license, #293309 commit a4a1139101a64c02bd31df517359e2b9aa961489 Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: Thu Apr 20 09:23:09 2017 Commit: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> CommitDate: Thu Apr 20 18:14:29 2017 x11-themes/adwaita-icon-theme: Update Gentoo logo license, #293309 commit 2deccc9a1cf888ee17f57d4e3c410a9a654ac022 Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: Thu Apr 20 09:20:46 2017 Commit: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> CommitDate: Thu Apr 20 18:14:27 2017 x11-themes/gnome-icon-theme: Update Gentoo logo license, #293309 eva asked me not to restore the IUSE=+branding since he believes we ought to discuss enabling it globally. However, I do not plan to pursue that.
