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

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at
Fri Sep 30 09:11:16 UTC 2005

On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 10:11 +0200, Christian Jodar wrote:
> Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > we dual licenced the images.
> I thought about this solution. But I thought this could not do what I'd like to.
> The creators logos have only one wish: Being know as the logos creator and
> keep its paternity.
That's called "copyright".

In a nutshell, licensing is the copyright holders granting others rights
to use, modify etc. their "creative work".

Let me try an examples: Think about you having bought a print of a
Picasso picture in a poster store.

You don't own the copyright, but by buying it, you implicitly have been
granted a license to use if for "private purposes" (frame it, attach it
to your wall etc.). 

But you did _not_ obtain a license to reproduce it, nor to use it in
public (e.g. to reprint it in a newspaper, or to scan and put it onto
your homepage). You'd have to ask the copyright owners for explicit

Now consider the situation of users of your package.

They are in a similar position than you'd be with the Picasso print.
Here, the GPL takes effect: You must give our user the same rights as
you obtain from the copyright holders.

Projected to the Picasso print, if you had obtained the print under the
GPL, you'd have obtained the right to reproduce this print and to
publish it under the restrictions of the GPL.

This doesn't invalidate the copyright of the original authors.

>  CC BY-SA does that well. But GPL does not. So with dual
> license, anybody could use the pictures with the GPL one and then the
> attribution will be lost.
> Am I wrong again?
Yes, you are mixing up copyright and licensing once again.


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list