PDA

View Full Version : Breach of the GPL



Penguin Guy
October 19th, 2009, 06:12 PM
This had been working me up for a while, an icon theme on gnome-look is using modified GPL icons, but distributing it under a by-nc-nd license: Mashup (http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=86452)
Usually I wouldn't have a problem with this because people gnome-look people aren't usually very serious about their license, but he's already reported two people for infringements (one of them being me). What do you people think?

By contacting the gnome-look people his icon theme was removed. Attached is a very incomplete list of Mashup's icons that are copied/modified versions from another theme.

Bachstelze
October 19th, 2009, 06:14 PM
Well, if he's using modified GPL icons, that's a clear violation. Just report him if it bothers you.

starcannon
October 19th, 2009, 06:14 PM
You'll need to report his abuse of the license if one exists, or you believe one exists. This should pretty much put an end to h[is/er] b.s. I should think.

Penguin Guy
October 19th, 2009, 07:10 PM
Well, I couldn't find a way to report him through gnome-look, but I did submit a report through his file hosting service. He was using Windows Live so I was careful to mention that it was a Linux icon theme - that should do the trick! :)
But what do I do about the version on Softpedia (http://linux.softpedia.com/progDownload/Mashup-Download-40124.html)? I couldn't see any option to report it.

JDShu
October 19th, 2009, 07:12 PM
http://www.gnome-look.org/feedback/

I guess you must have missed it.

Penguin Guy
October 19th, 2009, 07:16 PM
http://www.gnome-look.org/feedback/

I guess you must have missed it.
I thought that was for feedback on the website rather than the content.

JDShu
October 19th, 2009, 07:21 PM
The link to that page read "report abuse" I figure thats close enough.

koenn
October 19th, 2009, 07:22 PM
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

JDShu
October 19th, 2009, 07:37 PM
Actually I'm a little confused, does the GPL cover art like icons? Any examples of this? And in this case, which icons are GPL'd?

As you can see, I find this pretty interesting :D

dragos240
October 19th, 2009, 07:53 PM
Actually I'm a little confused, does the GPL cover art like icons? Any examples of this? And in this case, which icons are GPL'd?

As you can see, I find this pretty interesting :D


Well I think that the icons INSIDE a program that is licensed by the GPL,are licensed under the GPL as well.

But you could read the GPL to find out.

Penguin Guy
October 19th, 2009, 07:54 PM
Actually I'm a little confused, does the GPL cover art like icons? Any examples of this? And in this case, which icons are GPL'd?
As you can see, I find this pretty interesting :D
Yes, the GPL can cover artwork, the 'source code' meaning svg or xcf or whatever format you were working in.

Npl
October 19th, 2009, 07:55 PM
Taking inspiration from or resembling other icons surely aint a GPL-violation. ie. most trashcan icons look like trashcans, that hardly means he taken the picture from gnome and modified it.

If he done everything from scratch is his right to do whatever he pleases.

Penguin Guy
October 19th, 2009, 07:55 PM
Well I think that the icons INSIDE a program that is licensed by the GPL,are licensed under the GPL as well.

But you could read the GPL to find out.
Yes that's correct, unless you specifically specify that they are another license.

Penguin Guy
October 19th, 2009, 08:01 PM
Taking inspiration from or resembling other icons surely aint a GPL-violation. ie. most trashcan icons look like trashcans, that hardly means he taken the picture from gnome and modified it.

If he done everything from scratch is his right to do whatever he pleases.
He didn't, he admitted that his icon theme is mainly composed of other icons that have been recolored and/or compressed. He is, of course, allowed to license any icons that he made from scratch under whatever license he chooses.

zekopeko
October 19th, 2009, 08:32 PM
He didn't, he admitted that his icon theme is mainly composed of other icons that have been recolored and/or compressed. He is, of course, allowed to license any icons that he made from scratch under whatever license he chooses.

Considering the douche-bag-y way he's behaving please report him wherever you can find "his" icon pack. He has to change the licence to the original for those files that he didn't make from scratch.

EDIT: Could you post some links to the original icons under GPL that he is using? Just want to check.

Npl
October 19th, 2009, 08:54 PM
He didn't, he admitted that his icon theme is mainly composed of other icons that have been recolored and/or compressed. He is, of course, allowed to license any icons that he made from scratch under whatever license he chooses.Ok, it wasn't very clear from your first post :)

Penguin Guy
October 19th, 2009, 08:58 PM
Considering the douche-bag-y way he's behaving please report him wherever you can find "his" icon pack. He has to change the licence to the original for those files that he didn't make from scratch.

EDIT: Could you post some links to the original icons under GPL that he is using? Just want to check.
Okay, well I do recognize quite a lot of these icons, but finding and listing all of them would take forever, so here's two of them:

Mashup (www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=86452):actions/media-playback-start.png & Crashbit (www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=71140):128x128/actions/media-playback-start.png
Mashup (www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=86452):actions/media-record.png & Crashbit (www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=71140):128x128/actions/media-record.png

JDShu
October 19th, 2009, 09:21 PM
Oh wow, that looks like a pretty clear violation then...

earthpigg
October 19th, 2009, 09:31 PM
posting here so i can find this thread again and follow it's progress.

please let us know what the gnome-look website says when they get back to you.

for my own project, i've never modified source code so i just link to ubuntu's source code repository on the website. my conscience has still been bothering me a bit, though, regarding config files. around my 9.10 release, i'm going to take it a step further and host the config files that i have trivially modified in addition to keeping the documentation on how i modified them in place.

Steveway
October 19th, 2009, 11:09 PM
Well you should call the gpl-violations guys and give them as many details you can get.
http://gpl-violations.org/

Keyper7
October 19th, 2009, 11:39 PM
Okay, well I do recognize quite a lot of these icons, but finding and listing all of them would take forever, so here's two of them:

Mashup (www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=86452):actions/media-playback-start.png & Crashbit (www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=71140):128x128/actions/media-playback-start.png
Mashup (www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=86452):actions/media-record.png & Crashbit (www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=71140):128x128/actions/media-record.png

Well, the description itself says he got some icons from Oxygen. Oxygen is dual licensed under cc-by-sa and GPL. I don't think any more discussion is needed before reporting.

Warpnow
October 20th, 2009, 12:35 AM
I reported him through gnome-look as well.

That guy just pisses me off.

Claiming his "property rights" include forbidding redistribution. If you use GPLd items as your base, you don't have that right.

JDShu
October 20th, 2009, 12:38 AM
Its possible he got separate permission from the people who he go the icons off of right?

Bachstelze
October 20th, 2009, 12:45 AM
Its possible he got separate permission from the people who he go the icons off of right?

Possible, but very unlikely.

Chronon
October 20th, 2009, 09:04 AM
It looks like the content may have been removed. The links are now dead.

K.Mandla
October 20th, 2009, 12:00 PM
Is this it?

http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Mashup+5.8+%5BREMOVED%5D?content=107742

Maybe not. I can't find the original one to compare.

hansdown
October 20th, 2009, 12:37 PM
Is this it?

http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Mashup+5.8+%5BREMOVED%5D?content=107742

Maybe not. I can't find the original one to compare.

Yes, it has been removed for copyright infringement.

mister_pink
October 20th, 2009, 02:21 PM
To be honest I get far more annoyed with people that take windows icons and post them on there under the GPL.

Penguin Guy
October 20th, 2009, 04:33 PM
Yes, it has been removed for copyright infringement.
The one you are looking at is actually my derivation of the theme (www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=107742) that has been reported for infringing his cc-by-nd copyright license. His theme (http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Mashup?content=86452) has also been removed from gnome-look. To get his theme removed from Windows Live I must contact one of the original authors and get them to do all this (http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyrtInfrg.htm) - do you think I should? Also, what can we do about the Softpedia version (http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Desktop-Environment/Icons/Mashup-40124.shtml) - I couldn't see any report link?

Keyper7
October 20th, 2009, 05:44 PM
do you think I should?

Yes. What he's doing is not allowed. Simple as that.

Funny thing is, if he wasn't so aggressive in enforcing his fictitious copyright, no one would probably notice his violations.

Karma is a bitch sometimes.

keiichidono
October 20th, 2009, 07:17 PM
Yes. What he's doing is not allowed. Simple as that.

Funny thing is, if he wasn't so aggressive in enforcing his fictitious copyright, no one would probably notice his violations.

Karmic is a bitch sometimes.

You just have to roll with the updates man.

starcannon
October 20th, 2009, 07:20 PM
I reported to Softpedia, and this is the reply they sent:


From: Marius Nestor <marius@softpedia.com>

Hello,

The project is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-No
Derivative Works 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/

There is no GPL:
http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Desktop-Environment/Icons/Mashup-40124.shtml

Have a nice day!
--
Marius Nestor

Linux Editor-In-Chief

http://www.softpedia.com
http://linux.softpedia.com

So they aren't even looking into the issue, just taking the posters word for it that he/she has the rights to enforce any license they see fit.

Keyper7
October 20th, 2009, 07:35 PM
I reported to Softpedia, and this is the reply they sent:

So they aren't even looking into the issue, just taking the posters word for it that he/she has the rights to enforce any license they see fit.

Try again and politely explain that you are not talking about his license, you are talking about the license of icon themes he borrowed icons from.

If they need proof, point to the Oxygen legal page (http://www.oxygen-icons.org/?page_id=4) and mention that Mashup uses Oxygen icons.

Just be polite and reasonable, and they'll probably listen to you. Being hostile and assuming "they aren't even looking into the issue" won't achieve anything.

Keyper7
October 20th, 2009, 07:37 PM
You just have to roll with the updates man.

Damn you, don't edit quotes of mine without warning.

For a second I thought I really made a freudian typo there.

starcannon
October 20th, 2009, 07:41 PM
Try again and politely explain that you are not talking about his license, you are talking about the license of icon themes he borrowed icons from.

If they need proof, point to the Oxygen legal page (http://www.oxygen-icons.org/?page_id=4) and mention that Mashup uses Oxygen icons.

Just be polite and reasonable, and they'll probably listen to you. Being hostile and assuming "they aren't even looking into the issue" won't achieve anything.

I did, though I didn't point to the Oxygen Legal Page. I was not hostile in any of my messages with Softpedia.

Keyper7
October 20th, 2009, 07:45 PM
I did, though I didn't point to the Oxygen Legal Page. I was not hostile in any of my messages with Softpedia.

Sorry, I wasn't implying you were.

I was just afraid you might be in forthcoming messages given your previous post.

Glad you were not. ;)

keiichidono
October 20th, 2009, 08:07 PM
Damn you, don't edit quotes of mine without warning.

For a second I thought I really made a freudian typo there.

If I had warned you it wouldn't have been funny. :P

Penguin Guy
October 21st, 2009, 07:19 PM
He's re-uploaded it to gnome-look, I've reported it, but if you've got a gnome-look account it would help if you vote it down (http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=114133&vote=bad).

zekopeko
October 21st, 2009, 08:00 PM
He's re-uploaded it to gnome-look, I've reported it, but if you've got a gnome-look account it would help if you vote it down (http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=114133&vote=bad).

Just report it again.
And please post some more examples to other icon themes he has taken from. That way we can inform the relevant authors of this and they can threaten legal action if he doesn't stop.

Exodist
October 21st, 2009, 08:18 PM
I voted it down also. I hate it when someone claims someone elses hardwork is their own. I posted if he wanted out of hot water to put the icons under multiple license. To make a file to include with the icon set that states which ones where GPL and which ones he made that are under the CC license. That should resolve the issue.

Penguin Guy
October 21st, 2009, 08:28 PM
Just report it again.
And please post some more examples to other icon themes he has taken from. That way we can inform the relevant authors of this and they can threaten legal action if he doesn't stop.
I am starting to compile a list, I've attached it to the original post.

zekopeko
October 21st, 2009, 08:38 PM
I am starting to compile a list, I've attached it to the original post.

Awesome. Also, downvoted. Let me know if he needs to be reported again.

Keyper7
October 21st, 2009, 09:02 PM
Sigh... why don't the guy simply repackage his set and separate the icons per license? He can then put whatever restrictive license he wants over his own creations, I don't care.

I don't think the excuse "The majority of the code is my own creation, only 10% is GPL" would fly if the context was software development.

zekopeko
October 21st, 2009, 11:38 PM
Sigh... why don't the guy simply repackage his set and separate the icons per license? He can then put whatever restrictive license he wants over his own creations, I don't care.

I don't think the excuse "The majority of the code is my own creation, only 10% is GPL" would fly if the context was software development.

That be like saying "I'm a little pregnant".
The worst part is his douce-bag-y way of behavior.

Penguin Guy
October 22nd, 2009, 05:57 PM
The worst part is his douce-bag-y way of behavior.
Yeah, to be honest I think he's angry because I'm stealing some of his downloads - very immature.

Chronon
October 22nd, 2009, 06:34 PM
@Penguin Guy,

I downloaded the archive that you put up and I found the information wanting there as well. To satisfy the licensing terms, a manifest should be included that lists each icon and what license it's offered under, as well as satisfying redistribution terms (e.g. attributing the source of the icons in the case of CC-BY-* licensed items).

I'm not trying to call you out, just pointing out proper practice when redistributing others' work.

Exodist
October 22nd, 2009, 06:38 PM
@Penguin Guy,

I downloaded the archive that you put up and I found the information wanting there as well. To satisfy the licensing terms, a manifest should be included that lists each icon and what license it's offered under, as well as satisfying redistribution terms (e.g. attributing the source of the icons in the case of CC-BY-* licensed items).

I'm not trying to call you out, just pointing out proper practice when redistributing others' work.

I agree.

Also I did send Softpedia a msg using their Update email option mentioning that he was trying to publish some artwork he didnt create along with artwork he worked on under his own creative commons license and that it was a breach of the GNU-GPL.

Penguin Guy
October 22nd, 2009, 06:39 PM
@Penguin Guy,

I downloaded the archive that you put up and I found the information wanting there as well. To satisfy the licensing terms, a manifest should be included that lists each icon and what license it's offered under, as well as satisfying redistribution terms (e.g. attributing the source of the icons in the case of CC-BY-* licensed items).

I'm not trying to call you out, just pointing out proper practice when redistributing others' work.
Yes, I'm working on making one. But it's very hard since the author of the other Mashup theme didn't include a full list of sources.

Chronon
October 22nd, 2009, 06:50 PM
That's understandable.

The "proper" thing would be to either take it down until you have tracked down the original sources so that license terms can be satisfied properly, or else remove the icons whose source and licensing isn't known.

Keyper7
October 23rd, 2009, 06:18 PM
That's understandable.

The "proper" thing would be to either take it down until you have tracked down the original sources so that license terms can be satisfied properly, or else remove the icons whose source and licensing isn't known.

I agree, just remove the download links temporarily and add a note like "We are currently working on repackaging the theme in order to give proper credits and comply with the original icon licenses".

Furthermore, you must not include the Mashup author's original icons. For his own work, his ND license holds.

Penguin Guy
October 23rd, 2009, 06:25 PM
I agree, just remove the download links temporarily and add a note like "We are currently working on repackaging the theme in order to give proper credits and comply with the original icon licenses".

Furthermore, you must not include the Mashup author's original icons. For his own work, his ND license holds.
I am not prepared to find and credit all authors - you can't seriously expect me to go through every existing icon theme and check for duplicates - it would take forever. I will however add credit for authors as I find out about them.

Keyper7
October 23rd, 2009, 07:08 PM
I am not prepared to find and credit all authors - you can't seriously expect me to go through every existing icon theme and check for duplicates - it would take forever. I will however add credit for authors as I find out about them.

I seriously recommend taking the theme down until all credits are given and all licenses are sorted out.

Otherwise you might be violating a license without knowing it.

Exodist
October 23rd, 2009, 07:17 PM
I am not prepared to find and credit all authors - you can't seriously expect me to go through every existing icon theme and check for duplicates - it would take forever. I will however add credit for authors as I find out about them.
If you dont then your no better then the guy you keep hindering about his GPL breach.

Its like a "Do as I say, not as I do" scenario here your trying to put across.

Chronon
October 23rd, 2009, 08:33 PM
I am not prepared to find and credit all authors - you can't seriously expect me to go through every existing icon theme and check for duplicates - it would take forever. I will however add credit for authors as I find out about them.

I agree with the others. This is a breach of the respective licenses. It's good that you intend to work toward compliance, but you really shouldn't redistribute others' work until compliance is achieved. I would say take it down and if you want to offer a remix pack go to original, clearly licensed sources and properly document everything. At this point you're trying to salvage something that was totally done wrong in the first place. It would be much better to go make your own icon collection and keep track of licenses and requirements for reuse.

t0p
October 23rd, 2009, 08:50 PM
I am not prepared to find and credit all authors - you can't seriously expect me to go through every existing icon theme and check for duplicates - it would take forever. I will however add credit for authors as I find out about them.

But you're the OP, right? You're the one who created this thread in an effort to report a GPL violation. And now you're violating the GPL because you can't be bothered to fulfill the requirements?

It wouldn't "take forever" to track down the original authors. It might take a while, but that's irrelevant. You have responsibilities. If you can't be bothered to face up to the responsibilities, I suggest you give up modifying and redistributing GPLed work.

Penguin Guy
October 24th, 2009, 12:52 PM
If you dont then your no better then the guy you keep hindering about his GPL breach.

Its like a "Do as I say, not as I do" scenario here your trying to put across.
Not at all: He could easily have credited the original authors, but he did not, it is very hard for me to credit the original authors, but I am trying to - two very different circumstances. If you people are so bothered by this, why not give me a hand listing the sources?

zekopeko
October 24th, 2009, 02:00 PM
Not at all: He could easily have credited the original authors, but he did not, it is very hard for me to credit the original authors, but I am trying to - two very different circumstances. If you people are so bothered by this, why not give me a hand listing the sources?

They aren't different. In the end you are both not complying with the licences. Stop justifying your actions. They are as bad as his.
Remove your download links until this is sorted out.

Penguin Guy
October 24th, 2009, 04:01 PM
I strongly disagree that I am doing anything wrong, but since everyone else seems to think so I have removed it permanently - I simply do not have the time to add a list of original authors. If anyone does have the time to do this, contact me and I'll give you the archive.

Mashup - Removed (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=107742)

tcoffeep
October 24th, 2009, 04:04 PM
I voted it up, because I like people angry. It keep the economy growing.

Keyper7
October 24th, 2009, 04:13 PM
Penguin Guy, this is not about what we or you think it's right. It's about what's right according to the licenses. Personal opinions are irrelevant.

I strongly recommend you change the text to something like "removed until licenses and credits are correctly sorted out to avoid violations", because nobody is talking about "morally right". We are talking about "legally right".

Penguin Guy
October 24th, 2009, 04:22 PM
Penguin Guy, this is not about what we or you think it's right. It's about what's right according to the licenses. Personal opinions are irrelevant.

I strongly recommend you change the text to something like "removed until licenses and credits are correctly sorted out to avoid violations", because nobody is talking about "morally right". We are talking about "legally right".
Legally, I don't have to remove it until the original author has contacted me and told me, specifically, which icons were made by them, and are breaching their license. This has not happened, so the theme is not illegal. And as I said before - I have quit supporting the theme, that is a goodbye page, not a see-you-later page, it will likely be deleted soon anyway.

Keyper7
October 24th, 2009, 04:33 PM
Legally, I don't have to remove it until the original author has contacted me and told me, specifically, which icons were made by them, and are breaching their license. This has not happened, so the theme is not illegal.

Wrong. You have no idea which licenses some of the icons are under, so distribution of some of them might be illegal, regardless if you are aware of it or not. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the current state of the theme is illegal. Just that it might be and you shouldn't risk it.


And as I said before - I have quit supporting the theme, that is a goodbye page, not a see-you-later page, it will likely be deleted soon anyway.

Regardless, the text is still wrong. It's not about morals.

Penguin Guy
October 24th, 2009, 05:01 PM
Wrong. You have no idea which licenses some of the icons are under, so distribution of some of them might be illegal, regardless if you are aware of it or not. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the current state of the theme is illegal. Just that it might be and you shouldn't risk it.
Technically illegal, but there is no proof as of yet, so I am not forced to remove it. The point I was trying to make was that I was removing it of my own free will rather than it being removed by my hosting service/police. I have cut that part out now.