License for application name and logos (Was: Creative Commons license for pictures)

Christian Jodar tian at
Thu Sep 29 20:53:13 UTC 2005

> While changing the license to MPL might (IANAL) allow it to use these
> images... it would not allow the project to be combined with Fedora
> Extras, Debian, etc because their overall licenses are more aligned
> towards "You cant stop someone from selling this work as a seperate
> piece of work."

Then now I am definitively lost...

Firefox uses the MPL and is included into Fedora. They also have a logo
that is published under a license more restrictive than the Creative
Commons BY-SA (creators are OK to remove the NC part) because no
deribated work can be made.

So why is it OK for Firefox and it would not be for GCfilms.

I took Firefox and MPL as examples because I found them. But if anyone
could tell me something like:

"Use license X for your software.
 Use license Y for logos.

And you will be able to continue packaging GCfilms for Fedora Extras."

Then everything will be fine for me.

My only constraint is to have a license for logos that is made for art
works (GPL is not). CC are the ones preferred by creators and I think
they are more free than license we find in Fedora for other logos.

Don't tell me there is no solution for this.

Or if using no explicit license for pictures made them under international
law (even if the software is GPL'ed), it would be OK also for me.

I have a software where I can change the license. Some pictures made for
it with a free license (*). And it is really hard to use them.
It sounds really weird for me.

* quote from :

"Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license
This is a copyleft free license meant for artistic works and entertainment


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list