New Concept for F11 King

Luca Foppiano luca at
Tue Mar 31 13:54:05 UTC 2009

On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 10:13 +0200, Luca Foppiano wrote:
> I'm trying to understand better his points because I think are a bit
> restrictive. I'll let you know.

Second reply from tom spot :)

> uhm, I would like to better understand your points, are you sure this
> policy is not a bit restrictive?
> I think the "selling point" on the licence is related to brushes, not
to derived artworks. If you sell fedora, you don't sell the brushes, but
a work made with it. The brushes are used in indirectly way.
> I think copying the full web page is intended to avoid stealing idea
and web page, for example if I copy his webpage and I show as mine. 
> What do you think?

I think I didn't look closely enough. :)

The link you sent me is to the Brush author's interpretations of how
he/she thinks the license that they have chosen works. I mistook this
for the actual license. The actual license that they are using for the
brushes is Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 (which ironically, is what I
suggested that you ask if we could use). This license is fine for
Fedora. We do need to be sure that we give the original author of the
brushes attribution credit. A text file which accompanies the art that
gives credit to the brush author and a link to the brush website should
be sufficient.

Btw, the author really doesn't understand how the CC-BY license actually
works. However, please don't correct their misunderstandings, because I
suspect they would choose a different license that we would have
problems using. :)

Today is Setting Orange, the 17th day of Discord in the YOLD 3175 

The faster I go, the behinder I get.
		-- Lewis Carroll

More information about the Fedora-art-list mailing list