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

Michael Wiktowy mwiktowy at
Thu Sep 29 21:33:16 UTC 2005

Christian Jodar wrote:

>>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

If you have made sure that there are no "non-commercial" restrictions on
your artwork and it is just under a CC BY-SA licence, I don't see how
there can be any complaints about it being included in Fedora as this is
far less restrictive than the trademarked images and brands included
with Mozilla products.
I think the initial problems with inclusion in Fedora were only due to
you initially saying that they had to be included with non-commercial
caveats (or were not sure).
If those NC requirements have been clarified and are gone, then
everything should be fine.
GPL with art under CC BY-SA sounds good to me:
Anyone can still use the images elsewhere.
Anyone can still reuse the GCFilms code wherever they want.
Anyone can sell anything ... provided they follow the GPL and the CC
BY-SA as stipulated.

I don't see a problem.


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list