GPLv3 compatibility questions

[David Woolley]

David Woolley wrote:

>> I don't want any derivatives and commercial usage of my hand-made
>> icons/images/artwork. Is it legal to use
> 
> No.  These sound much too tightly bound.  If these form an important 
> part of the package, rather than just examples of things that the user 
> is expected to replace, they need to be GPL compatible.

To get reasonably within the spirit of the GPL, you would, I believe, 
need to supply the program so that it installs with fit for purpose, but 
maybe not particularly pretty images - the nature of the application may 
affect this.  Then add the better images separately, in a form that 
would allow someone without development tools to substitute them for the 
basic images.

Note that the version with the images replaced with the good ones would 
not be redistributable by the recipient, as such redistribution would 
mean that they breached the GPL.  This include non-commercial 
redistribution.

Alternatively, you would need to use the LGPL, and provide the linkable 
version of everything except the images, together with documentation on 
how to create a compatible images module, in addition to complete program.

The use of MS-PL almost certainly means that LGPL is the only GPL family 
possibility.

I am not a laywer; this is not legal advice.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.