Re: What is the license of generated files?

[Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn redhat com>]

On 12/14/2012 01:11 PM, David NeÄas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:54:13PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> > I personally like the exception method ala Autotools but would be
> > fine with the GFDL 1.3 license which has already been cleared with
> > Eclipse.org.
>
> I hope that whatever license is chosen it is meant to be be dual with
> GNU GPL under which they are implicitly licensed now.  GNU FDL is a
> peculiar license, incompatible with GNU GPL(!) and in some variants
> verging on non-free, whether cleared by eclipse.org or not.  If the
> files were GNU FDL license I am afraid many would nave to look for
> replacements under a different license.
>
> > Is there any way of contacting the original contributor of the .png
> > files to have them licensed?  If not, I would suggest replacing
> > them. It should be simple to find such icons with an appropriate
> > license.
>
> As someone who likes the current images and their current license I
> wonder what is the best way to keep them used when the documentation of
> my projects is compiled.
>
> Yeti

Any progress on this?  This is potentially a serious issue.  Should I 
open a bug against gtk docs?

GPL would be unacceptable from our stand-point for documentation.  I 
think the best solution would be that the owner of the documentation 
gets to decide how to license the generated files (i.e. they purposely 
have no license information).

The icons still need to be dealt with.

-- Jeff