I have important question about the icons using in Blender 2.8.
Actually, I’m developing some tool which is supposed working closely around Blender inside Blender centered workflow. In order to have same look and feel, it is better if I use the icons from Blender for the tool.
However, I wonder if the svg file for icons are also licensed under GPL? I think I’m not ready to release my tool under GPL license. So I wonder if there is any other license option for the icons.
Thanks very much!
There is no separate license for the icons, so they should be assumed to be GPL licensed when you get them from the Blender source.
You can ask @jendrzych who designed the icons though, he can release them under any license he wants.
To be part of the Blender, new monoicons must be licenced in a way that’s compatible with the app’s licencing model. Saying that, I made it to be a subject to the GNU GPL licence. The SVG I release at blenderartists.org has an appropriate annotation.
EDIT: Files with licence text and copyright info were uploaded.
SIDE NOTE:
Icons must be used only for functions they were designed for, in order to maintain GUI’s internal integrity, to keep good UX under control and to avoid confusion.
Thanks for the reply. GPL is GPL, I’d use other solutions.
I’d be more than glad if You suggested an appropriate solution (the licencing better than GPL).
I’m not an expert for the license stuff. I think GPL is good generally.
I am just wondering for people developing their own tools around Blender, there will be a lot of same concepts such as Mesh/Nodes/Camera etc and it’s better if people can use the same visual elements to represent same/similar concept. I do not have an answer or maybe we just cannot get both…
When I released icons for 2.5 for the first time, I did it under CC. Ton e-mailed me then, that CC is not compatible with BLender’s licensing. Is it still valid? I’d gladly use the CC model, but don’t know if it’s possible now.
it is your work, you can license it under any license you want, which includes dual licensing, you could license under GPL for blender and any of the CC-* licenses you prefer for other consumers of the icon set.
That’s interesting approach.
@Ton - is dual-licencing acceptable? Let’s say: GPL for use with Blender and CC for any other uses?
CC BY version 4.0 is also compatible with the GPL now, earlier versions were not.
So if you want to keep things simple that can be used.
Is CC BY-SA 4.0 applicable as well?
Yes, actually the blog post says CC BY-SA 4.0.
last time I checked GPL was only for code, which is why FSF made FDL for documents in the first place. That’s also the reason why GPL cannot touch blend file other that embedded python scripts. Unless BF has a custom made GPL license I have not seen.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
It’s mainly intended for code, but it can be and is used for other things too. Particularly files that are bundled along with GPL code.
It’s not because it is code instead of some other type of data, but due to other terms in the license. For example GPL text editors can be used to edit non-GPL code.
Well FSF says that GPL is not for data here
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
which a text editor fits like a glove for. Icons even more so. Unless you mean that Blender uses a customized version of GPL license.
It’s about the distinction between the program and the data being edited by that program. Not about source code vs. icons images, which may be either part of a program or not. The Blender icons are part of the program and GPL licensed.
Your link does not say “GPL is not for data”, but “The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data” which is a much more specific statement.
As original and only creator of those icons so You can release them two times with different licences.
Silightly off topic but related,
What about Suzanne?
The code that creates Suzanne is GPL licensed. The resulting 3D model that it generates is not, there are no license restrictions on that.