Licensing question over resources/images over documentation creating

edited August 2013 in General Support
I just noticed in the openlp manual I have done up for users that I have used the button images from the openlp source code.

Yes I had include a very short note that I did need to check on license of these images.   The openlp work as a total is GPL my question is directly about resources/images and there user ability in documentation.

Of course I can make the documentation legally clear by taking screen shots and cutting the buttons out but this is a lot of effort if its not really required.   So far our operational manual has been restricted to internal usage and most likely will stay that way since it contains location exact things.

I have no problems giving openlp project/authors credit for the images and giving up rights to alter them in any other form than size and rights and not to use them about any other program in documentation.   I just don't want to have to include like GPL copying to manual if possible as this is add 7 pages to document.  Thinking the document is 14 pages long.  1/3 large for licensing declare is why I would forced to screen shot cut and replace.   Basically I need a notice that fits in under half a page or I have to replace the images.


  • I have no qualifications to really answer your questions.

    That said, OpenLP actually uses Oxygen Icons which is Creative Commons something or other!
  • phill source base of openlp does not state that in the license files in resources are Creative Commons.

    Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Statement of usage is very small.

    GNU Public License Library still has a requirement of copying include or basically 6 to 7 pages of legal filler.   In fact I would have no problems with a license of 

    Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported With what I am doing.  I am not selling the manual.

    Yes I also do want to give correct credit to the authors of the Images I used.
    I had the felling I had seen most of them before.

    I think we might have found a section of openlp that could be revised in licensing.  Mostly adding to the Licensing file about the other licenses allowed on those files.

    Just the way openlp source code currently is without asking if nuking of the Oxygen Icons rights in the source tree is intentional I don't know.    Its something people need to be aware when importing duel license items into a GPL program that you can block the non GPL license.   Remember the BSD guys getting upset with the Linux kernel importing stuff and not declaring it was BSD.   Yes GPL is annoying viral at times.

    Basically I need what license are those files.
  • Hello oiaohm,

    It is mentioned in the above dialog, that the icons are from
    the oxygen project. Only the OpenLP logo is not, but the icons we use are.

  • Thanks googol I guess its lost to the sands of time what version oxygen icons project they are from.

    With the information I can work around.   I have used the Openlp logo once as is.   But that is minor to replace with a screen shot.   Of course I would prefer just to put Attribution text in.    I always feel a bit like a slime using the screen shot escape to get around copyright due to the effort I know people put into creating icons.

    Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike is also non viral as long as you don't modify the images.   Creative Commons Attribution requirements are normally small.   So for us writing manuals its a good license.   Half a page to a page of Attribution is tolerable when writing manuals.  Going past that is problematic.

    Yes I know I have caused a odd on here.   GPL/LGPL is good for source code Creative Common Attribution-ShareAlike is good for us writing manuals.  Ink costs with manuals.

    I have asked oxygen icons project for their Creative Common Attribution text for usage of the icons.   I will post it here when I get it so it can be added to the openlp source base to make manual writers life simpler in future.   There will always be a need to write site particular manuals.

    Yes I can fit LGPL under 1 page but you are talking a unreadable size font.

    What I am dealing with is the fun part of trying to the correct respect of authors of images and practical.   The one thing creative commons did right was allowing the license text to be on a website and not having to be printed in every document.
Sign In or Register to comment.