Re: What is the license of generated files?

[Luc Pionchon <pionchon luc gmail com>]

On 19 July 2013 12:10, Tobias Mueller <muelli cryptobitch de> wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> I am not very knowledgable in field so I may be completely wrong.
>
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 09:52:00PM +0200, Stefan Sauer wrote:
> > https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk-doc/tree/home.png
> > https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk-doc/tree/left.png
> These files appear to be licensed under the terms of the GPL.
> If you want to redistribute them, I guess you need to comply with the license.
>
> The problem at hand seems to be whether something gtk-doc creates is also GPLed.
> Generally, the GPL does not seem to expand on the output a GPLed program 
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput>
>
> But it seems as if gtk-doc would merely copy a GPL licensed file as
> opposed to generate it, so my guess is that the GPL expands to the copy.
>
> If you generated the file (i.e. using an image library), it could
> probably be considered output which is not covered by the GPL.
>
> Again, IANAL. Far from it. If anybody has another intepretation of the
> case or if I missed anything, I'd be delighted to be told.


I think we need to consider the intention, and eventually correct the
license bits.

Especially here we are talking about three very basic icons
(navigation icons). It is trivial to do new ones if (re)licensing is a
problem.

So, isn't the intention: "the generated (*) documentation is yours,
use/license as you wish" ?

(*) including the copied files.


If "license as you wish" would be a problem, maybe a simple Creative
Commons Attribution would make everybody happy.
http://creativecommons.org/choose/