rude wrote:Yes, I changed the "worst" parts of ZLIB into something more fitting (software -> graphics/artwork), but consider this:
ZLIB License wrote: In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this artwork.
Damages from artwork?
Did you read any cc license, mr smartypants?
They have the
same stuff (you know... down there...)
rude wrote:The main reason, however is this: I do not want people to be able to use it commercially. I plan on setting up a store (eventually), and do not want people pumping out LÖVE t-shirts.
So, qubodup, what's wrong with cc-by-nc?
Open source projects (which want to be 100% clean) and commercial projects (except you make an exception for those) are not able to use your icon.
Hm. LOVE is pretty cool, but people won't create fake t-shirts. An alternative would be using
FDL as license - it would require the license to be printed with the object on the t-shirt (unless you, the copyright holder do it).
Well ok, having a note and attaching the license would probably be enough to satisfy the fdl, but it still would differ from what zlib would make you do (nothing I think).
In any case: Provide a low-rez variant (at least up to 256px) for use with executables under a license that commercial and open source projects can use.
mike wrote:qubodup wrote:You set the logo license on the homepage to cc-by-nc... would you mind setting it back to that zlicense-svg mix thing or use the original zlib license? pleeeeeeze?
Why? Is it really that important?
Well
from a sane, non open source-freak point of viev: probably not...