What is the license of oxygen icons? [POSSIBLE LICENSE VIOLATION]

[Matthew Woehlke]

oxygen-icons.org seems to have disappeared, making it harder to know a
definitive answer.

I'm trying to determine what is the actual licensing of the oxygen
icons, in connection to possible violations thereof. Specifically,
http://openiconlibrary.sourceforge.net/ claims they are dual-licensed as
CC-BY-SA 3.0, but I am unable to confirm this claim, and Wikipedia,
Fedora and http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/Oxygen/Licensing all claim
that they are licensed *only* under LGPL. (Additionally, COPYING in the
tarballs only gives LGPL.)

Is there any truth to the CC-BY-SA claim? If not, is there someone to
whom I should be reporting this violation?

(It's worse than just openiconlibrary; who knows how many users are
using the icons in violation of LGPL...)

[Albert Astals Cid]

Post by Matthew Woehlke
oxygen-icons.org seems to have disappeared, making it harder to know a
definitive answer.
I'm trying to determine what is the actual licensing of the oxygen
icons, in connection to possible violations thereof. Specifically,
http://openiconlibrary.sourceforge.net/ claims they are dual-licensed as
CC-BY-SA 3.0, but I am unable to confirm this claim, and Wikipedia,
Fedora and http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/Oxygen/Licensing all claim
that they are licensed *only* under LGPL. (Additionally, COPYING in the
tarballs only gives LGPL.)
Is there any truth to the CC-BY-SA claim? If not, is there someone to
whom I should be reporting this violation?
(It's worse than just openiconlibrary; who knows how many users are
using the icons in violation of LGPL...)

You may want to mail Nuno and some of the other guys? They probably know which
license they choose?

Cheers,
Albert

[Matthew Woehlke]

Post by Albert Astals Cid

Post by Matthew Woehlke
oxygen-icons.org seems to have disappeared, making it harder to know a
definitive answer.
I'm trying to determine what is the actual licensing of the oxygen
icons, in connection to possible violations thereof. Specifically,
http://openiconlibrary.sourceforge.net/ claims they are dual-licensed as
CC-BY-SA 3.0, but I am unable to confirm this claim, and Wikipedia,
Fedora and http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/Oxygen/Licensing all claim
that they are licensed *only* under LGPL. (Additionally, COPYING in the
tarballs only gives LGPL.)
Is there any truth to the CC-BY-SA claim? If not, is there someone to
whom I should be reporting this violation?
(It's worse than just openiconlibrary; who knows how many users are
using the icons in violation of LGPL...)

You may want to mail Nuno and some of the other guys? They probably know which
license they choose?

Sorry, I've been out of the loop too long; which "other guys" would you
suggest?

[Jonathan Riddell]

The icons as distributed by KDE are LGPL 3
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/Oxygen/Licensing

But from the now defunct oxygen-icons website:
"Oxygen icon theme is dual licensed. You may copy it under the
Creative Common Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License or the GNU Library
General Public License."

So it's not a problem to copy them using the CC licence.

Jonathan

Post by Matthew Woehlke
oxygen-icons.org seems to have disappeared, making it harder to know a
definitive answer.
I'm trying to determine what is the actual licensing of the oxygen
icons, in connection to possible violations thereof. Specifically,
http://openiconlibrary.sourceforge.net/ claims they are dual-licensed as
CC-BY-SA 3.0, but I am unable to confirm this claim, and Wikipedia,
Fedora and http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/Oxygen/Licensing all claim
that they are licensed *only* under LGPL. (Additionally, COPYING in the
tarballs only gives LGPL.)
Is there any truth to the CC-BY-SA claim? If not, is there someone to
whom I should be reporting this violation?
(It's worse than just openiconlibrary; who knows how many users are
using the icons in violation of LGPL...)