You are not logged in.

#1 2023-01-11 18:51:07

Simaryp
Member
Registered: 2018-04-28
Posts: 135

License and originality considerations for contributions

Hi,

i played around a bit and created my own everforest themed plymouth theme. Although it's nothing super special I thought it might be interesting for others as there is nothing with this color palette in AUR.

But I didn't write it from scratch. I used the standard plymouth script theme as a skeleton and modified, add and deleted stuff.

I used the Arch Icon SVG from wikimedia with the color accents and tinted it.

I used an everforest themed background from a github repo.

I designed my own log in field.

So I wonder if I can putt al of that in an own public repo and possibly even put it into aur. Although an package for an plymouth theme might be too much since a simple cp does the job too.

Last edited by Simaryp (2023-01-11 19:38:56)

Offline

#2 2023-01-11 20:15:47

twelveeighty
Member
From: Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2011-09-04
Posts: 975

Re: License and originality considerations for contributions

By quick count, there's 134 plymouth theme packages in the AUR, so you're certainly not the first to package a theme. It's also pretty much the only sensible way to share it with others, especially if you think about if/when you wish to update it and then share the updates, etc.

As for licenses, you'll have to check every upstream source you've used and what their license/copyright is.  If you're lucky, it's all the same license type and then you should be able to release it under that same license (assuming it's an open-source license, of course). If it's a mix, then things get much more complicated.

Offline

#3 2023-01-11 20:51:08

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 27,786
Website

Re: License and originality considerations for contributions

It sounds like you have two licenses and one trademark to comply with:

Simaryp wrote:

I used the standard plymouth script theme...

I do not see anything with that name in the repos or AUR.  What specifically is this?  Is this from the github repo "plymouth-themes"?  If so, that's licensed GPLv3, in which case, your package would have to also be licensed GPLv3 and if there are any components that can't be so licensed, you'd be S.O.L.

Simaryp wrote:

I used the Arch Icon SVG from wikimedia with the color accents and tinted it.

There is no copyright nor license issue here, but there is the trademark:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Develo … markPolicy
Use of the logo in such artwork in general is clearly allowed so long as the "TM" remains intact.  Whether changing the colors / tint is acceptable is less clear, but personally I'd be pretty sure it'd be fine.  To cover all bases, you could send a quick message to the trademarks email (technically speaking, the colors of a trademarked logo must be maintained unless permision to modify them is explicitly granted, but I'm pretty confident permission would be granted upon request).  As this is a trademark issue and not copyright or license, there is no concern about license compatibility with other source material.

Simaryp wrote:

I used an everforest themed background from a github repo.

You'd need to be more specific here.  Does that artwork have a license?


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Offline

#4 2023-01-11 21:37:43

Simaryp
Member
Registered: 2018-04-28
Posts: 135

Re: License and originality considerations for contributions

I used this theme as base:
https://github.com/freedesktop/plymouth … mes/script

So yes it's directly from Plymouth and GPLv3 then.

The specific logo is this here as I like the nonmonochrome color.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File … tal-64.svg
So I guess I need to check creative commons.

I used forest-stairs from here:
https://github.com/Apeiros-46B/everfore … /landscape
There is no license mentioned. This picture is afaik not from this person, but it's a color shifted version from a common wallpaper one can find on many places.
This might be the most problematic one. But I could imagine to replace it and leave a note to replace the png as one desires.
If creative commons for the logo should be fine I guess it would be good to look for something with cc too, right?

Offline

#5 2023-01-11 22:07:38

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 27,786
Website

Re: License and originality considerations for contributions

No, creative commons is not right for the logo.  The creator of the logo gave ownership of it to the arch linux dev team. This is one of my pet peeves of open-source advocates: there can be no license without a claim of ownership.  As ownership was transfered the original creator can no longer license it and it is up to the terms set by the arch linux dev team which is simply the trademark requirement linked above.

Again, I think this is trivial and would be granted permission without any question.  But if you are bothering to identify license or rights for use, identify the correct rights.

Last edited by Trilby (2023-01-11 22:16:59)


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Offline

#6 2023-01-11 22:33:39

Simaryp
Member
Registered: 2018-04-28
Posts: 135

Re: License and originality considerations for contributions

So you are telling me that this logo and any deratives are property of arch linux and that creative commons created as stated in the link has no meaning?

Thats really confusing. How can I know if a license claim is valid or not?

Offline

#7 2023-01-12 00:00:07

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 27,786
Website

Re: License and originality considerations for contributions

Simaryp wrote:

So you are telling me that this logo and any deratives are property of arch linux

No.  The logo is the property of the arch linux dev team.  And you are free to use it, so long as you maintain the "TM" symbol.

Simaryp wrote:

... and that creative commons created as stated in the link has no meaning?

I'm not sure what you mean by no meaning.  The creative commons is a license.  But only the owner of a bit of content can license it.

Simaryp wrote:

How can I know if a license claim is valid or not?

If the owner of the property gives you permission to use it, that's a license.  If some random person who does not own it gives you permission, that's about as valid as me trying to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Offline

#8 2023-01-12 05:00:36

Simaryp
Member
Registered: 2018-04-28
Posts: 135

Re: License and originality considerations for contributions

I am getting even more confused. Are we still talking about the same thing?
The logo.svg I linked has for example no TM and differs from arch web page logo in filling.

If the general shape of this arch symbol is protected as a trade mark of arch and the license specifies the TM in the corner has to be kept. I don't see how the picture I linked is legit at all.

Offline

#9 2023-01-12 10:29:55

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 10,638

Re: License and originality considerations for contributions

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm … x_logo.svg

It appears that file should not be there anymore, you probably want to use a better source.


Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.


(A works at time B)  && (time C > time B ) ≠  (A works at time C)

Offline

#10 2023-01-12 11:27:16

Simaryp
Member
Registered: 2018-04-28
Posts: 135

Re: License and originality considerations for contributions

Okay. So I am better of with picking official logo from archlinux.org. I will need to keep the TM and request approval and conditions for color change and removal of archlinux string.

I am probably better of with a selfmade dummy background and instruction how to replace it. Or maybe add a condition in the script to use an image if available and an simple background if not.

For the GPL I need to just use the same license I guess.

Offline

#11 2023-01-12 14:44:19

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 27,786
Website

Re: License and originality considerations for contributions

Yup, that is the strictly proper way of handling it.  Though you can also just ask the author / creator of the background for permission.  More often than not creators of such artwork would be quite happy to have someone interested in using it in a major linux distro package.


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Offline

#12 2023-01-14 04:07:35

cfr
Member
From: Cymru
Registered: 2011-11-27
Posts: 7,127

Re: License and originality considerations for contributions

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm … ter#TRADEM may help a little bit. As I understand it, there's a disagreement on Commons about the status of Arch Linux logo files. The discussion seems pretty confused, though, so I don't see that being of much use.

Copyright is one thing; trademark restrictions are another. That seems to cause lots of confusion on Commons' talk pages ....


CLI Paste | How To Ask Questions

Arch Linux | x86_64 | GPT | EFI boot | refind | stub loader | systemd | LVM2 on LUKS
Lenovo x270 | Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7200U CPU @ 2.50GHz | Intel Wireless 8265/8275 | US keyboard w/ Euro | 512G NVMe INTEL SSDPEKKF512G7L

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB