8 ms·
SVG Icons Using MIT License
- hardmaru 7y agoFor content, rather than code, I generally prefer to use one of the creative commons licenses. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/
- metaphor 7y agoHow would you differentiate content from code when the thing in question is as meta as SVG?
- tingletech 7y agoIf the line is really that grey, dual license MIT/CC0?
- asicsp 7y agoI am following what a few books like 'Think Python' do, content is CC and code is MIT (or GPL, etc).
- tribby 7y agoI agree with the spirit of your comment (CC makes sense for SVGs), but I also don't think it's quite as simple as content vs. code. there are many icon sets that are distributed as font binaries, for example, which are software; in which case the OFL (SIL open font license -- https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL_web https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id...) might make more sense.
- lukeholder 7y agoI am partial to the quality of https://svgporn.com/ https://svgporn.com/ they hand-write the SVG code for small file size.
- quickthrower2 7y agosfw?
- sus_007 7y agototally :D
- Yajirobe 7y agoYou shouldn't be on Hackernews while at work to begin with.
- ps101 7y agoIt's actually okay for many jobs and workplaces.
- mort96 7y ago1) Reasonable workplaces wouldn't be bothered if you browse HN while you would otherwise be unproductive (waiting for something to download or compile or load or something). 2) People use SFW/NSFW even when not at work; you wouldn't open an NSFW link in a university lecture hall because it didn't say NSFULH.
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoif the business I'm at right now doesn't want you using a site they stop it at the network level. This is why I can't get into my Google Drive
- onion2k 7y agoI didn't think my comments were that bad.
- ComputerGuru 7y agoThanks for sharing that!
- VvR-Ox 7y agoThank you for the hint, looks like some good source.
- sago 7y agoHow can these be licensed in any way, when the artwork is of trademarked logos? Genuine question. Aren't you entirely relying on the fact that the owners of the copyright of the logos benefits from your use and are unlikely to chase? I mean, if I decided my project was compatible with Coca-Cola and slapped the Coke logo on it, they'd come after me, no? Even if I had redrawn the logo myself.
- tingletech 7y agomy understanding is that BSD, MIT, and CC0 can basically be thought of as quitclaim deeds. They only apply to any interest the creator might have had. NO WARRANTY, USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quitclaim_deed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quitclaim_deed Also, my understanding is they only cover copyright, not any patent or trademark rights.
- Uehreka 7y ago(The usual: IANAL) Trademark is different from copyright in that you can have a trademarked logo on your webpage (or in any other work) as long as you aren’t implying association with the owner of the mark. Trademark owners can’t come after you for, say, writing a scathing critique of their product that includes their logo for reference. But they can come after you if you add their logo to a list of “companies using this library!” without their permission. There are tons of questions I admittedly have about why reality shows blur out logos (I imagine they’re avoiding creating the impression that a brand has endorsed the crazy stuff happening on the show through product placement) and why developers can include the github logo in reference to the github repo for a project when neither the author nor the project are associated with the github brand (my guess is that there’s a carve-out for that sort of thing, since github wants people to do this as much as possible).
- jyrkesh 7y agoI believe you're absolutely right in general, but it also helps that GitHub has explicitly allowed their logo's usage for that scenario for a while: https://github.com/logos https://github.com/logos
- 7y ago
- yellowapple 7y agoGiven the actual condition being imposed on users of MIT/Expat-licensed assets: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. I'm failing to see what the hold-up is here. - If it's an SVG file, what's wrong with including the license text as a comment? - If it's a raster image, what's wrong with including the license text in the metadata? The way I'm reading this, as long as the license text is somehow embedded in the asset - whether or not it's actually visible to someone viewing it as an image - then that fulfills the terms of the license, no? If such an embedded license is sufficient, then I fail to see what the problem is. Is it just file size? Are these people really so averse to content creators being credited for their work that said consumers of said works consider embedded attribution/licensing unacceptable (and why)? If such an embedded license is not sufficient, then why is it insufficient? Obligatory: I ain't a lawyer. Given the sorts of quibbling that seems to be happening over a three-paragraph license that's ubiquitous in the world of software, I don't envy the actual lawyers one bit.
- larrysalibra 7y agoComplying with the MIT license by including it in each SVG file would defeat the stated purpose of "SuperTinyIcons" - to consume very few bytes - by ~tripling the file size of each icon. The icons are ~500 bytes - the license is over 1 kilobyte.
- cyphar 7y agoYou could use the LibreJS tags, which avoid you having to copy the entire license text.
- jhabdas 7y agothe link stopped working. here's the link: https://github.com/edent/SuperTinyIcons/issues/214 https://github.com/edent/SuperTinyIcons/issues/214
- tiborsaas 7y agoThe sane solution if one wants to play fairly is to create a licenses page on the webpage or app and mention the source of the icons and other OS software used. This way you are acknowledging the license and you distribute it too with the copy. This is how the YouTube app does it for example on Android. Settings/About/OS licenses.
- jhabdas 7y agoWould that fit best next to the Impressum, Cookie Disclaimer, Terms or About page?
- rad_gruchalski 7y agoDepends on your jurisdiction. In Germany, it could be probably placed on the AGB page.
- 8ig8 7y agoWhat about using licenses.txt? Along the lines of: security.txt, robots.txt, humans.txt.
- tiborsaas 7y agoThat's a cool idea, never seen that, but after quite a while of googling here's one on the root domain: https://walltime.info/licenses.txt https://walltime.info/licenses.txt
- edent 7y agoI run this repo, but didn't open the comment. Curious to know why others think. I chose MIT out of laziness, and because that's what done of the source files were using. I've never heard of the "Blue Oak" licence the comment refers to. Lots of people and companies have contributed to the icon set over the last couple of years without issue. I'm of the opinion that having an acknowledgements section of an app / website is sufficient. I suppose I could add some metadata to each file, but that would inflate most of them to over 1KB.
- franciscop 7y ago> "I'm of the opinion" Please if you are working/setting licenses, make sure it's not just an opinion and that there's enough data/you do enough research to back it up. As explained in many sites, MIT for code, CC for art.
- edent 7y agoAre SVGs code or art?
- jhabdas 7y agoIt depends. SVGs could be both if, for example, they were hand-crafted. Code itself often is art because it requires creative skill and imagination to produce.
- Avamander 7y agoWhy should they use MIT and CC? There are plenty of other good, if not better licenses, claiming some site is the ultimate truth is just baseless.
- wodenokoto 7y agoIn such a case, where SVG markup code is MIT licensed, would a generated png count as the compiled binary?