4 ms·
What license are these logos being released under? The alternative set specifically states CC-BY 3.0... but the main set, as far as I can tell only have the imp
by lambada 11y ago
What license are these logos being released under? The alternative set specifically states CC-BY 3.0... but the main set, as far as I can tell only have the implied licence granted by being allowed to use them to advertise the license.
- chrisBob 11y agoThat was my first question. The attribution requirement for the alternative logos is quite a drag. I really wouldn't bother with a logo that requires credit like that.
- jessaustin 11y agoIt might not be license-compliant, but if I were to ever use these logos, I would claim to satisfy the attribution requirement through comments in the page source. After all if you write a CLI tool that links GPL stuff you don't have to mess up your output with license crap. Those who want to know will read the source.
- marcosdumay 11y agoIsn't attribution solved by linking at their page with the explanation of the logos?
- jessaustin 11y agoIt seems to make more sense for the logo itself to link to the explanation of the actual license. (e.g. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html ) I agree with parent posts that it is a confusing distraction to have some other link also present on the page. If GNU wanted to put such links on their license pages, they could. Now they just have a logo and a link to TFA.