Subject: Re: GPLv3 compatibility questions
From: Ilia Ternovich <ternovich@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 08:05:48 +0400

 Wed, 11 May 2011 08:05:48 +0400
Hello David!

Thanks for rapid answer!

As far as I understand I can create separate package with artwork
(icons, images etc) and release it under non-profitable non-derivative
license. In order to reuse this "proprietary" (of some kind) package
in my main application I should release it (main application) under
LGPL due to the fact that LGPL allows me to link against non-GPL
licensed package without providing it's sources right?

Thanks!

2011/5/10 David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>:
> David Woolley wrote:
>
>>> I don't want any derivatives and commercial usage of my hand-made
>>> icons/images/artwork. Is it legal to use
>>
>> No.  These sound much too tightly bound.  If these form an important part
>> of the package, rather than just examples of things that the user is
>> expected to replace, they need to be GPL compatible.
>
> To get reasonably within the spirit of the GPL, you would, I believe, need
> to supply the program so that it installs with fit for purpose, but maybe
> not particularly pretty images - the nature of the application may affect
> this.  Then add the better images separately, in a form that would allow
> someone without development tools to substitute them for the basic images.
>
> Note that the version with the images replaced with the good ones would not
> be redistributable by the recipient, as such redistribution would mean that
> they breached the GPL.  This include non-commercial redistribution.
>
> Alternatively, you would need to use the LGPL, and provide the linkable
> version of everything except the images, together with documentation on how
> to create a compatible images module, in addition to complete program.
>
> The use of MS-PL almost certainly means that LGPL is the only GPL family
> possibility.
>
> I am not a laywer; this is not legal advice.
>
> --
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>