What's "illegal"?

jbzoller · Post by **jbzoller** » July 28th, 2005, 10:56 am

OK, this thread is for myself, but I figured it would be helpful for others too, because I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't understand this. It comes as a response to Jasper locking my thread with my new posted buttons for Safari that will make it look like Camino. Jasper contends that I violated some copyright laws in the process.

Since that OBVIOUSLY wasn't my intention, as I was just trying to give people an option to change Safari and it happened to be to look like Camino. (People like to change themes of their browsers, you know.) Since Jasper offers no clarification for his statement about my violation of copyright laws and hasn't responded to my PM to him, I needed to start up a new thread to have my questions answered.

Let's begin with an assumption that was obviously beyond Jasper's ability to make: I am a fan of Camino and have been supporting this project for well over a year now, so I probably didn't do what I did maliciously.

Let's also note that whether you manually install the sets I made and view the readme.txt file or you use Safaricon to do so, credit is VERY clearly given to the people whose images I used, so there was no attempt on my part to do anything other than modify existing images and I made to claims that I was doing otherwise.

Now, to my questions...

I thought that Camino (like all Mozilla projects) was open source and that the components to them could be freely borrowed and utilized provided that you give credit to who originated the component which I did within the archives I made. So am I mistaken there?

If I am mistaken, is it with my whole concept of open source or are there just some parts to Camino that are specially protected? I see davedit and others posting modifications to Camino's icon and such and there doesn't seem to be a problem there. Is there?

I didn't get any feedback when I made a new promotional button that what I was doing was wrong. Was it wrong?

When I developed and posted a link for the Navigator theme that I created for Safari (which has basically been renamed and slightly modified to Camino 0.7), again, no one said anything to me. Was that wrong?

So, my apologies to Jasper for complimenting him and anyone else who worked on those icon sets by making them a theme set for Safari. Now, can someone please tell me what the heck it is that I did wrong? Or does it just boil down to me not asking Jasper ahead of time if I could do what I did? If so, again, more apologies to Jasper, but since the issue never arose before, I didn't think it would now.

Thanks in advance (sincerely) for informative responses. I don't want to make this kind of "mistake" again.
jbz

jbzoller · Post by **jbzoller** » July 28th, 2005, 11:18 am

I didn't realize that there was a difference between what Jasper has contributed and what anyone else on the Camino Development Team has contributed.

I also don't understand the idea of me "making it public." His images are all freely accessible and "modify-able" within Camino without any accompanying notice that the images may not be used for any other purpose.

It's not like anyone would credit me with doing anything other than exactly what I did: Shrink the buttons so that they could be used with Safari. The only exceptions, I suppose, would be the slight modification that I did for the print and autofill buttons, so that they'd be easier to understand when working within Safari.

Again, all credit is given to the appropriate people within the archives, and this issue did NOT come up before when I did something that I consider to be very similar when I created a promotional button for Camino and used the Camino icon with the Firefox button.

EDIT: LOL... I was responding this second time to a post by snow7, but now that's gone. #-o

japser · Post by **japser** » July 28th, 2005, 11:41 am

Just a quick reply, a longer one will come soon, and please correct me where I'm wrong as I'm not a copyright guru yet.

When it comes to using anything from a opensource project you need to comply to the license it's published in. So that basically means you can't just copy anything without complying. That goes for the icons aswell, but when it comes to images it's a bit more complicated as "the author" is the owner of the images. In this case that means you can't use them in any other app unless they are shared under the same gpl license, and if you have approval of the author (me in this case). We have had previous issues with theme creators using camino icons for sets for other browsers on linux and windows, fact is they broke the law and they needed to pull the theme.

The reason why I locked your post was that you provided a set for a competitor browser not using any license. We the camino team rather not have you creating an sets for other browsers as we don't want users to get confused in anyway. We also don't approve of icon sets for camino containing images of icons from other browsers, as they also break copyright laws. And last but not least, we are fine with providing an camino icon theme containg the old chimera icons as they are our icons anyway.

jbzoller · Post by **jbzoller** » July 28th, 2005, 11:55 am

japser wrote:The reason why I locked your post was that you provided a set for a competitor browser not using any license. We the camino team rather not have you creating an sets for other browsers as we don't want users to get confused in anyway.

OK, thanks for that explanation. Obviously, it was not my intention to subvert the system in any way. I was just trying to be cute. I guess I just didn't appreciate your tone about it, as if I was supposed to know that there were these issues. You yourself said that the use of the images is "a bit more complicated."

So OK, I pulled the images (and you already pulled the links), but I didn't think you had to be so condescending about it. I have been a project supporter for a while here.

We also don't approve of icon sets for camino containing images of icons from other browsers, as they also break copyright laws.

That's interesting. I have a very Safari-looking set of buttons for Camino. I don't even remember where I got it now. That would be "illegal" for me to use?

And last but not least, we are fine with providing an camino icon theme containg the old chimera icons as they are our icons anyway.

So, are you saying that it is OK for me to use and post the "Camino 0.7" set as I now have it? Or it isn't?

Thanks.
jbz

rebug · Post by **rebug** » July 28th, 2005, 12:06 pm

As far as I know, the GPL has no requirement that permission be obtained from the copyright holder. That point seems moot because according to <a href="http://www.caminobrowser.org/support/sup_faq.html#about_free">caminobrowser.org</a>, Camino is distributed under the MPL, not dual-licensed like other MoFo products. Are these images MPL as well, or are they GPL as you state?

Clarity regarding the license status could have avoided this entire issue.

japser · Post by **japser** » July 28th, 2005, 12:09 pm

I'll discuss this with Samuel later, but I think we should add some docs on the cb.org website so it's easy to find what one can and can't do with icons/images. It's an issue that seen more and more these days. People these days are not aware in any way what copyright rules are. Basic rule is that anything "created" has copyright, meaning you can use it but can't do anything else without either paying/complying to rules/getting authorisation. Complicated stuff, we are learning more and more every month.

Safar style icons: yeah if you go by the rules you are not allowed to publish a set of safario icons for camino, that's not mozilla rules but you are breaking apple rules. But they don't have time to check everything so don't worry about that.

Camino 0.7 icons: you may only provide a set for camino users not for any other app unless you comply to the license and have approval of the creator of those icons (not me).

jbzoller · Post by **jbzoller** » July 28th, 2005, 12:17 pm

OK, thanks for that info. I didn't quite read an apology in there anywhere, but I'll assume it was there because you acknowledged that this was an issue that is coming up "more and more these days" and that this is "complicated stuff."

At least I'm not the idiot that you implied that I was in the thread that you locked.

japser · Post by **japser** » July 28th, 2005, 12:24 pm

I never said you where an idiot, just publically asking why you'd want to use camino icon in safari (I know they are nice icons) when you can just use camino

We just don't really like it when someone just "asumes" they can do such things.

jbzoller · Post by **jbzoller** » July 28th, 2005, 12:51 pm

Again, it's all good. Your point was taken; it just felt pretty sharp going in since I didn't understand the complexities of this issue.

As far as why someone would want to do that? I dunno. I'm sorry to say that I can't use Camino as my full-time, only web browser. I have Safari (or sometimes Shiira) right next Camino in my dock and use it at least 50% of the time when I do browse. What I don't like about Safari is the appearance. Making it look more like Camino makes it more enjoyable for me to use.

jbz

rpenner · Post by **rpenner** » July 28th, 2005, 12:58 pm

I can't believe what I'm reading here. jbzoller had sent two icon sets to me for inclusion in SafarIcon, so that Safari users can experience the same icons as Camino users. I see nothing wrong with that. The arguments I have heard about why this should not be done are laughable at best. The theme names were Camino 0.7 and Camino 0.8 and properly identify the source. If someone thinks that a user's browser choice is determined by its icons, then you are dreaming... Lots of people have pressured me to update CaminIcon, which provides the same service as SafarIcon. That application also displays the Camino icons. Am I supposed to pull that app?

japser · Post by **japser** » July 28th, 2005, 1:06 pm

If you think copyright rules are laughable this is the wrong place to discuss that.

rpenner · Post by **rpenner** » July 28th, 2005, 1:44 pm

Well, then lock this thread too.

Uncle Asad · Post by **Uncle Asad** » July 28th, 2005, 1:56 pm

rebug wrote:As far as I know, the GPL has no requirement that permission be obtained from the copyright holder. That point seems moot because according to <a href="http://www.caminobrowser.org/support/sup_faq.html#about_free">caminobrowser.org</a>, Camino is distributed under the MPL, not dual-licensed like other MoFo products. Are these images MPL as well, or are they GPL as you state?

Clarity regarding the license status could have avoided this entire issue.

The code is all tri-licensed, though. Just take a look at the files in LXR. I was under the impression that all mozilla.org code was tri-licensed (MPL/GPL/LGPL), so some clarification is definitely needed.

If the "chrome" imagery is also tri-licensed (it's not "code" in the strictest sense), the picture changes (although even the MPL seems to be a standard-enough OSS license with regard to assigning copyright and modifying code).

In situations where items are not covered by an OSS license (take for instance the OmniWeb icons in some of the icon sets), it's almost certainly a violation of the copyright and binary software license to use and distribute those creations in another manner. However, reuse/repurposing of copyrighted imagery happens all the time. Some copyright holders don't object (or don't notice because creating an icon or forum avatar out of their copyrighted imagery is so far below their radar while they're hunting software or movie pirates), but some do and those icons/images disappear, and in egregious misuse of copyrighted material, people get sued.

Anyway, the issue here is not so much copyright (because all of Camino is copyrighted) but whether the icons fall under the MPL/GPL/LGLP tri-license like the rest of the code, which allows people to modify and make derivative works of the copyrighted code.

rpenner · Post by **rpenner** » July 28th, 2005, 3:42 pm

Folks, this is totally ridiculous. The Mac has always been a platform where users modify resources. It is beyond me how anyone would raise copyright issues about f*cking icons. This is beyond silly. I'll post them and I'm looking forward to the legal action from Amsterdam. Sheesh...

rpenner · Post by **rpenner** » July 28th, 2005, 4:17 pm

Jasper's self-important reaction has prompted me to ignore Joe Zollers request to not post the icons. They are now online. I take full responsibility for posting a dozen or so icons, whose artistic value is immeasurable and will no doubt cause a major headache to the jury in a court of law when trying to assess the monetary compensation for this blatant copyright violation. Really, some folks need to get a life...