Hi, I’m starting this thread to ask for a clearer license indication than the License section on the assets repo’s README. Although that section along with the accompanying Apache Trademark Policy lines clearly indicates the right usage for many cases, it is not enough for certain sites, such as Wikipedia. The strict licensing rule requires a clear public license like CC, or else artworks would be scheduled for auto-deletion (until recently the logo on Wikipedia’s Nim page hasn’t been updated from the legacy one, and the new one uploaded is about to be deleted). I would think the same situation applies to many other public knowledge sites.
What I’m proposing is that the assets should be CC-licensed and it should be clearly stated so on the README file, as well as having the LICENSE file included in the repo; a Branding or Press Kit page can be added to the main website to clarify the right usage of logos along with the license (can check some other OSS projects’ branding page for reference). This is not a big change and it would make life easier in many cases.
I'm considering:
CC BY-ND: This license allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use.
CC BY-ND includes the following elements:
BY – Credit must be given to the creator
ND – No derivatives or adaptations of the work are permitted
(from https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ )
Any opinions?
We should rather choose on open license but which disallows impersonation. Don't remember what they are called, but there are licenses which says you are allowed to do what you want, but you can't use it to pretend you're officially affiliated with the project.
1. Who is the original creator?
From an issue in the repo it appears PhilipWitte graciously donated the arts and rights to relicense: https://github.com/nim-lang/assets/issues/5
(a delayed thanks from me Philip!)
but there are licenses which says you are allowed to do what you want, but you can't use it to pretend you're officially affiliated with the project.
Sounds good indeed.
CC0, the license used for e.g. the Linux logo includes the following wording:
When using or citing the work, you should not imply endorsement by the author or the affirmer.
This might be a good choice? I also checked a couple of other open-source logos and apart from those using trademarks its basically different CC licenses being used. GitHub curiously have attribution for theirs, even though I've never seen anyone attribute the logo (granted I haven't seen many direct modifications used as logos).
I'd love more loose license here as well, CC-BY-SA is great.
It may be silly case, but my friend is doing tarot deck out of programming languages as a way of embracing both crafts (we are both fascinated by esotericism and programming) and making this as sort-of fan art project that could be shared would be lovely.
It isn't directly Nim related in a way that it is supporting the language (as libs, tutorials and environments do), but it is still promotional use.