As a former Sony employee although in the consumer TV's business rather than either Vaio or Sony Music I'm pretty confident it is a mistake and that it is likel

As a former Sony employee although in the consumer TV's business rather than either Vaio or Sony Music I'm pretty confident it is a mistake and that it is likely to be fixed. [The Sony TV's came with a paper license in the box for all the various open source licenses of the software included in the TV and I believe there is a website with all the relevant source.] If it is used in a website is it really a breach of the terms of the LGPL? I thought that the whole point behind the Affero GPL was that the normal GPL/LGPL did not prevent you using software server side to present a service to users without the requirement to distribute the source. Given that I'm not sure what the status would be of an image under LGPL (dual license with Creative Commons Sharealike, attribution as mentioned by another commenter) being served as part of the website software. Now maybe it is reasonable to say that Javascript and images are actually distributed to every browser accessing the page and that therefore source code and license must be made available but it isn't completely clear to me. Whatever the technical legal case it was bad form and most likely a mistake for Sony to use this icon in this way. Edit to add: Sony is a massive sprawling multi-limbed business with actions from different parts sometimes not just contradictory but conflicting at times. It is all done under the Sony name so it is fair that bad in addition to good actions are reflected in the reputation but the reality is that there is very little shared between the Music arm putting out rootkits (about eight years ago - maybe it is time to move on) and the electronics side.