Proposed Graphics for Helium

brontosaurusrex · 2017-08-06 22:18:11

If one is doing derivate work the non-license is/could be a problem, how about cc0 ?

Last edited by brontosaurusrex (2017-08-07 10:02:13)

ututo · 2017-08-07 00:08:01

maybe we can use the same licese as the 'original flame logo'
https://www.bunsenlabs.org/legal.html

johnraff · 2017-08-07 03:02:21

^The licensing statement there refers to the content of the web page, not of BunsenLabs itself.

In fact CC seems to be basically for artwork (which this thread is about of course), but the majority of our code is under the GPL3 license.

Licensing can be quite complicated when re-using other peoples' work.
One tricky point is that a "no commercial use" condition in fact violates Debian licensing policy. https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
We can see there that Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA) v3.0/v4.0 is OK,
but Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike (CC-by-nc-sa) is not OK.

It is necessary that Debian can be used commercially, as long as the license conditions are followed. (The same applies to GPL for that matter.)

Of course BL isn't Debian, but our users might reasonably expect to be able to use it under the same conditions as Debian/GPL.

Last edited by johnraff (2017-08-08 00:47:21)

ututo · 2017-08-08 01:08:24

Hi @qwertKI! Welcome to BL! Nice setup you got there. You should post'em in the screenshots thread as well

@johnraff. So, it should be under CC-BY-SA v4.0 license then.

johnraff · 2017-08-08 01:42:11

@ututo thanks! Is there a place to add a license on the original DeviantArt page? Otherwise, I wonder if you could just add a comment there? That way we've got something to point to if asked.

damo · 2017-08-08 01:54:52

johnraff wrote:

@ututo thanks! Is there a place to add a license on the original DeviantArt page? Otherwise, I wonder if you could just add a comment there? That way we've got something to point to if asked.

If you "Edit" the artwork page, right at the bottom are the "Publishing" options. The License can be set there.

ututo · 2017-08-08 03:25:03

Now, here's a question. the bl fuzzy flame logo is a mix between the original bl-flame-logo and the Debian Open Use Logo. The wallpaper you see here is inspired by Ozgu Ozde's work (which is under GPL-2.0+ license). So, the way I see it, that wall (png file) is a derivative of all those sources. Can it still be licensed under CC-BY-SA? I can upload the svg file to dA and make it available from there.

damo wrote:

If you "Edit" the artwork page, right at the bottom are the "Publishing" options. The License can be set there.

thanks @damo!

johnraff · 2017-08-08 03:35:56

^Licensing can be a pain...
It seems here that CC-BY-SA is consistent with all GPL licenses though.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-08-08 06:08:28

johnraff wrote:

It seems here that CC-BY-SA is consistent with all GPL licenses though

The link refers to GPLv3 and states that:

CC BY-SA 4.0 is one-way compatible with the GNU GPL version 3: this means you may license your modified versions of CC BY-SA 4.0 materials under GNU GPL version 3, but you may not relicense GPL 3 licensed works under CC BY-SA 4.0.

If the original images are GPL'd then so must any derivatives.

damo · 2017-08-09 01:26:21

Slight tweak of the Beam background, with the proposed tint2-minimal, and Classic conky... (NB This is a BLOB scrot, so it has some jpg banding)

New Previous

Personally I much prefer the more "vibrant" existing background. You guys are more than welcome to try and produce another version, but ATM the feeling among the devs is to stick with the original.

PS If you do post something here then please include the other elements of the theme (Helium-dev OB/gtk Beam, conky, tint2), so it is easier to judge.

johnraff · 2017-08-09 01:56:32

^^You're right. I was carelessly looking at the previous entry, for CC-BY.
But since our default licence is GPL3 it still looks as if everything is OK in this case. In fact it looks as if when we use CC-BY-SA content we can just release it under GPL3, no?

Last edited by johnraff (2017-08-12 01:26:15)

Bearded_Blunder · 2017-08-18 09:18:44

I like the graphics for the desktop, however, I have reservations on the grub menu, there's just not sufficient contrast between text and background to actually read the text at the bottom of the screen.

It's illegible enough to be considered a bug.

johnraff · 2017-08-19 03:24:29

This Grub screen?

It looks clear enough to me, to be honest. Other opinions?

damo · 2017-08-19 03:30:23

johnraff wrote:

This Grub screen?
https://cdn.scrot.moe/images/2017/07/31/grub-2.th.png
It looks clear enough to me, to be honest. Other opinions?

Seems fine to me. Maybe some monitors show less contrast?

Sector11 · 2017-08-19 03:32:38

It's clear and very easy on the eye for me.

johnraff · 2017-08-19 04:37:27

Maybe B_B was looking at the Grub screen in the current helium-dev install. In that case, he's right - it's almost unreadable at the bottom. I haven't yet uploaded the new config file for the text colour.

Bearded_Blunder · 2017-08-19 05:17:38

johnraff wrote:

Maybe B_B was looking at the Grub screen in the current helium-dev install.

Indeed B-B was, and he couldn't read same.

johnraff · 2017-08-29 08:37:23

^fix is finally on the way in a forthcoming upgrade of bunsen-configs for helium-dev.

johnraff · 2017-08-29 08:47:05

wallpaper logo

The current images are, quite rightly IMO, optimized for the wider displays that most people are using.
However I don't suppose I'm the only person still owning machines with the squarer 4:3 aspect ratio that my test laptop has. The BL logo is clipped off on the right of its 1024x768 screen. (The lightdm login likewise.)

Is it possible to have it at least not look broken with 4:3 screens, while still looking beautiful on wider screens?

damo · 2017-08-29 09:03:12

^ I think I have mentioned the logo position before, for this very reason: I would suggest placing it further from the corner.

#41 2017-08-06 22:18:11

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#42 2017-08-07 00:08:01

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#43 2017-08-07 03:02:21

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#44 2017-08-08 01:08:24

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#45 2017-08-08 01:42:11

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#46 2017-08-08 01:54:52

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#47 2017-08-08 03:25:03

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#48 2017-08-08 03:35:56

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#49 2017-08-08 06:08:28

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#50 2017-08-09 01:26:21

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#51 2017-08-09 01:56:32

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#52 2017-08-18 09:18:44

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#53 2017-08-19 03:24:29

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#54 2017-08-19 03:30:23

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#55 2017-08-19 03:32:38

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#56 2017-08-19 04:37:27

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#57 2017-08-19 05:17:38

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#58 2017-08-29 08:37:23

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#59 2017-08-29 08:47:05

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

#60 2017-08-29 09:03:12

Re: Proposed Graphics for Helium

Board footer