jEsuSdA 8) (listas@jesusda.com) wrote:

Working on gtkrc I have solved F bug and improve the icons visualization.

Thanks for your efforts, that indeed looks really great. I'm all for including it in the main gimp source.

The bug D is almost done: eye icon has changed, bug when clicked, there are no "closed eye" showd, so, I need help to solve this.

I am not sure if I understand the bug: the default theme does not contain a "closed eye" icon.

Do you see the default eye when the mouse button is pressed down? Then apparently the stock icon definition for the ACTIVE widget state is wrong for some reason.

Thanks, Simon

simon@budig.de              http://simon.budig.de/

jEsuSdA 8) (listas@jesusda.com) wrote:

A - I have the symbolic icon, but I can find the widget name to load the icon. Gimp allways loads this colorful icon and I can not change it. What name has it?

This is imported from the default gtk stock icons: "gtk-select-color"

B - Same of A. I think solving A maybe can solve this bug.

Yeah.

C - I want to change this icon too. By default, gimp loads the desktop theme icon folder, but I whant to design and load a symbolic one for layers groups button.

Same here this probably is "gtk-directory"

E - Same as D bug but with the zoom-follow-window button.

Hum, no idea about that one. "gimp-zoom-follow-window" should be OK.

F - Same as D and E but related with default-colors and swap-colors.

This should be "gimp-default-colors" and "gimp-swap-colors", they get used in the size GTK_ICON_SIZE_MENU.

I hope this helps.

Bye, Simon

simon@budig.de              http://simon.budig.de/

jEsuSdA 8) (listas@jesusda.com) wrote:

B - Same of A. I think solving A maybe can solve this bug.

Yeah.

But solving A does not solve B and the old coloured icon still appears. ??? :(

ok, weird.

I have include the gtk-print to force CMYK color chooser to load the symbolic icon instead the gtk one. ;)

Hmm, I don't understand what you mean there.

Hum, no idea about that one. "gimp-zoom-follow-window" should be OK.

It does not work.

Could you do a preliminary release of your theme? That way I could try it and have a shot at debugging it here.

Bye, Simon

simon@budig.de              http://simon.budig.de/

jEsuSdA 8) (listas@jesusda.com) wrote:

El 05/10/13 01:05, Simon Budig escribi:

jEsuSdA 8) (listas@jesusda.com) wrote:

But solving A does not solve B and the old coloured icon still appears. ??? :(

ok, weird.

yes. :(

Dunno, I added the following section to the imagerc and it just worked:

stock["gtk-select-color"] = {
{"images/stock-colormap-24.png", *, *, "gtk-button" }, {"images/stock-colormap-24.png", *, *, * } }

Hum, no idea about that one. "gimp-zoom-follow-window" should be OK.

It does not work.

the path to the images erroneously contains the "/tools/" subdirectory.

Try this:

stock["gimp-zoom-follow-window"] = {
{ "images/stock-zoom-follow-window-12.png", *, *, "gtk-button" }, { "images/stock-zoom-follow-window-16.png", *, *, * } }

I hope this helps,
Simon

simon@budig.de              http://simon.budig.de/

Hi,

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Simon Budig wrote:

jEsuSdA 8) (listas@jesusda.com) wrote:

Working on gtkrc I have solved F bug and improve the icons visualization.

Thanks for your efforts, that indeed looks really great. I'm all for including it in the main gimp source.

I'm ok for it too. And I would be also OK to have an included dark theme as soon as possible (not waiting for 3.0). Because everybody says it's so better for graphics work (some pieces of the UI stayed light, missing icons, etc.), blabla, but each time I try one, it's broken somehow. So if we could have an optional one in the main tree, that we know fully works with GIMP, that would be awesome! :-) Obviously it could just be the GTK+3 default dark theme that we would have maybe tweaked to work with GIMP 2.10.

Thanks for the theming work anyway!

Jehan

The bug D is almost done: eye icon has changed, bug when clicked, there are no "closed eye" showd, so, I need help to solve this.

I am not sure if I understand the bug: the default theme does not contain a "closed eye" icon.

Do you see the default eye when the mouse button is pressed down? Then apparently the stock icon definition for the ACTIVE widget state is wrong for some reason.

Thanks, Simon

--
simon@budig.de http://simon.budig.de/ _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Jehan Pagès wrote:

Hi,

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Simon Budig wrote:

jEsuSdA 8) (listas@jesusda.com) wrote:

Working on gtkrc I have solved F bug and improve the icons visualization.

Thanks for your efforts, that indeed looks really great. I'm all for including it in the main gimp source.

Damn I should re-read me before posting. Parentheses badly placed and it lose any meaning! I meant:

I'm ok for it too. And I would be also very nice to have an included dark theme as soon as possible (not waiting for 3.0). Because everybody says it's so better for graphics work, blabla, but each time I try one, it's broken somehow (some pieces of the UI stayed light, missing icons, etc.). So if we could have an optional one in the main tree, that we know fully works with GIMP, that would be awesome! :-)

Obviously it could just be the GTK+3 default dark theme that we would have maybe tweaked to work with GIMP 2.10.

Thanks for the theming work anyway!

Jehan

The bug D is almost done: eye icon has changed, bug when clicked, there are no "closed eye" showd, so, I need help to solve this.

I am not sure if I understand the bug: the default theme does not contain a "closed eye" icon.

Do you see the default eye when the mouse button is pressed down? Then apparently the stock icon definition for the ACTIVE widget state is wrong for some reason.

Thanks, Simon

--
simon@budig.de http://simon.budig.de/ _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

Hi all,

I'm also for an additional dark theme. Both (dark and lighter theme) can ease the artists work and be used to check the images appearance on-the-fly.

I've already sat for hours on searching for a suitable dark theme, integrating the Gnome art-libre icon set and after asking Jimmac at IRC without ulterior motives one day before his G+ posting the things are now slipped away from my hands. If it still matters - Andrea Cimitans Darklooks theme looks suitable. In Debian it's in the package 'gnome-themes-extras'.

I also think there's more to a professional, user-supporting theme than assembling nice pieces out of a spontaneous idea. Ad hoc topics like suitability for speedy work, using a theme engine that works on all important platforms (Linux, Windows, OS X) and suitability for High-DPI (Retina) displays come to my mind. Therefore I asked Peter for some input on the topic. Perhaps we know more next week.

Another thing we should consider is the license. The used symbolic icon set is licensed under the Creative Commons Share Alike License 3 (CCBYSA3). It is probably [incompatible with the GPL] used in GIMP and could also be incompatible with Linux distributor approvals. IMHO either the icon set and theme are relicenced under the GPL or we need something else if we want to integrate them into GIMP. The Darklooks theme uses the GPLv2.

If this is clarified: As the 2.8 branch is for bugfixes I'm for integration into the master branch so the theme will be in the 2.10 release and who likes can use it in 2.8 anyway (both use GTK+ 2).

JEsuSdA 8) thanks anyway for your work. You did a great job and now that we're further there's surely less work to be done. Keep it up! :-)

Kind regards,

Sven

[incompatible with the GPL]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licenses

jEsuSdA 8) (listas@jesusda.com) wrote:

Not for me! :(
What kind of magic is this?! hehehe.

Sorry, my fault. I was looking at the wrong icon.

I see the problem now as well. Not sure what is happening there...

Bye, Simon

simon@budig.de              http://simon.budig.de/

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Sven Claussner wrote:

Another thing we should consider is the license. The used symbolic icon set is licensed under the Creative Commons Share Alike License 3 (CCBYSA3). It is probably [incompatible with the GPL] used in GIMP and could also be incompatible with Linux distributor approvals. IMHO either the icon set and theme are relicenced under the GPL or we need something else if we want to integrate them into GIMP. The Darklooks theme uses the GPLv2.

Why would CC by-sa v3 *for themes* be incompatible with GPLv3 *for code*? Do you have any information to backup this?

I know that the FSF says not to use it for code, but it says it is good for arts though. And I think since themes are not "compiled in" or "linked" to the code, there is absolutely no legal need to have compatible licenses. I am pretty sure there are a whole bunch of Free Software projects out there which use CC by-sa for arts (themes, icons, etc.) and GPL for code. And we were even considering this a few days ago on the IRC channel (relicensing all our brushes/pattern and all other GIMP default data in CC by-sa).

I am no lawman though, so if you have more information about this claim, ok. Otherwise from what I thought to know, there is absolutely no problem to have CC by-sa for themes in our main tree.

Jehan

If this is clarified: As the 2.8 branch is for bugfixes I'm for integration into the master branch so the theme will be in the 2.10 release and who likes can use it in 2.8 anyway (both use GTK+ 2).

JEsuSdA 8) thanks anyway for your work. You did a great job and now that we're further there's surely less work to be done. Keep it up! :-)

Kind regards,

Sven

[incompatible with the GPL]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licenses

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

On 06.10.2013 15:40, Jehan Pags wrote:

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Sven Claussner wrote:

Another thing we should consider is the license. The used symbolic icon set is licensed under the Creative Commons Share Alike License 3 (CCBYSA3). It is probably [incompatible with the GPL] used in GIMP and could also be incompatible with Linux distributor approvals. IMHO either the icon set and theme are relicenced under the GPL or we need something else if we want to integrate them into GIMP. The Darklooks theme uses the GPLv2.

Why would CC by-sa v3 *for themes* be incompatible with GPLv3 *for code*? Do you have any information to backup this?

I know that the FSF says not to use it for code, but it says it is good for arts though. And I think since themes are not "compiled in" or "linked" to the code,

They are. Their icons at least, see https://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/tree/themes/Default/images/Makefile.am#n394 ff.

there is absolutely no legal need to have compatible licenses. I am pretty sure there are a whole bunch of Free Software projects out there which use CC by-sa for arts (themes, icons, etc.) and GPL for code.

Then those projects might be a) unaware of this, b) might not compile in their icons or c) might have solved the problem. If there is one, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses lists CC-BY-SA version 2.0 as being incompatible and does not mention later versions.

And we were even considering this a few days ago on the IRC channel (relicensing all our brushes/pattern and all other GIMP default data in CC by-sa).

Yes, but those are not part of the compiled code. And we want to do this explicitely to avoid confusion about whether images created with such brushes and patterns would have to be licensed under the GNU GPL.

I am no lawman though, so if you have more information about this claim, ok. Otherwise from what I thought to know, there is absolutely no problem to have CC by-sa for themes in our main tree.

Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD

jEsuSdA 8) (listas@jesusda.com) wrote:

I have found a file: gimpstock.h that contains this lines:

/* missing icons: */ #define GIMP_STOCK_PALETTE GTK_STOCK_SELECT_COLOR

I suppose this mean that there is no icon defined, so Gimp load a gtk one and it is impossible to force gimp to load another icon from theme.

This is a #define pointing to a different #define. GTK_STOCK_SELECT_COLOR is defined as "gtk-select-color" and GIMP_STOCK_PALETTE inherits this definition.

The fun thing is, that the palette color selector uses GIMP_STOCK_PALETTE as well as the Palette Editor. I don't understand how this can be different icons.

Bye, Simon

simon@budig.de              http://simon.budig.de/

Hi,
listas@jesusda.com (2013-10-04 at 1244.03 +0200): [...]

I've been read the gimp documentation ( libgimpwidgets-GimpStock.htm ) to edit the imagerc file and load all the icons, but some ones does not load and I can not find the correct '' stock["NAME"] = '' entry.

When I assembled G3HOST, there was a tool named gle (SVN was still in use). It seems that tool is no more (lost with GIT migration?). The README.txt in the archive has all the info collected at that time. http://www.infernal-iceberg.com/gimp/G3HOST-20090219.tgz

But now, after some searching, I found a newer, similar, tool, gtkparasite. http://chipx86.github.io/gtkparasite/

Maybe it can help you figure widget layout, settings, etc like gle did. Good luck.

GSR

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:20 PM, jEsuSdA 8) wrote:

The buttons can be identified easily and his name appears clearly, but the icon in the tabs does not appears. I've searching on other values and trying several things, but I can found the icon name and any way to identify it.

Hi,

Is your theme from October 4 the latest version?

@Everyone, how about we merge it?

Alexandre

Hi,

in matter of the unclear license situation I asked the FSF for clarification and like to share their answer (see below). It's not a legal advice, but I hope it sheds us some light on the issue.

Best,
Sven

On 11.10.2013 at 02:48 A.M., Yoni Rabkin via RT wrote:

> I'm writing as a contributor to the GIMP open source project. We're > currently in the situation that we'd like to add more UI themes to our > project. We found a suitable icon set in the GNOME project > (https://github.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-icons). Our project is > under the GPL 3 (parts of it under the LGPL), the existing UI theme I > currently have in mind is under the GPL and the desired icon theme is > licensed under the CCBYSA3. Currently we're unsure whether the > CCBYSA3 artwork can be combined with the GPL code (and the GPL theme > if we decided to use it). How is the FSF's position about it? Can > they be combined or has the icon set to be relicensed under the GPL? > I already read your license compatibility list, but unfortunately the > latest CCBYSA license mentioned there is of version 2. Could you also > update the list, please?

The CC-BY-SA licenses and the GNU GPL are mutually incompatible because both are copyleft licenses; they both require that derivatives be licensed under the same terms, and it is therefore impossible to simultaneously satisfy both licenses.

But that is only true when the works are mutually derivative, and it isn't clear that this is the case. The position of the GPL Compliance Lab has been that if the software is merely displaying the icons, could just as well display any others, and doesn't rely on specific attributes of those particular icons then they shouldn't be considered derivatives and could be distributed alongside the GPL'd work in mere aggregation (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation)

Please bear in mind that we aren't lawyers and this isn't legal advice. Also note that it isn't necessarily a given that the icon's copyright holder/s hold the same position about derivatives.

I hope this sheds some light on the issue. Please feel free to write back with any further questions.

-- I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice

Regards, Yoni Rabkin

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM, jEsuSdA 8) wrote:

El 28/10/13 18:37, Alexandre Prokoudine escribió:

Is your theme from October 4 the latest version?

Here is the latest version:

http://www.jesusda.com/files/symbolic-gimp.7z

Reading Sven email about a possible licensing issue, and if I understand, you are the author of the icon set. Would you accept to double license your work under a GPL license? I guess this would simplify the whole discussion and problematic.

By the way, Sven, which GPL version is the theme?

Anyway yes, I would love to see a dark theme with a renewed icon set available in GIMP 2.10. :-)

Jehan

The problem with the color picker icon persist. :S

@Everyone, how about we merge it?

I think it will be a great idea. Gimp looks like great with this theme.

Thanks! jEsuSdA 8)

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:01 AM, jEsuSdA 8) wrote:

El 29/10/13 01:57, Jehan Pagès escribió:

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM, jEsuSdA 8) wrote:

El 28/10/13 18:37, Alexandre Prokoudine escribió:

Is your theme from October 4 the latest version?

Here is the latest version:

http://www.jesusda.com/files/symbolic-gimp.7z

Reading Sven email about a possible licensing issue, and if I understand, you are the author of the icon set. Would you accept to double license your work under a GPL license? I guess this would simplify the whole discussion and problematic.

I am not the author of all icons. The main work was made by the Gnome Design Team (I think Jimmac has made this nice work). I transformed and created new ones, and I converted all the work to a gimp theme.

I have absolutely no problem to license and relicense this theme. I think there are no problem about that and I made this work not only for me, but for all gimp users.

So, if you think a dual license or relicense of the work it will be fine, then all is ok for me. ;)

Cool!

Of course, you must ask Jimmac too.

By the way, Sven, which GPL version is the theme?

Anyway yes, I would love to see a dark theme with a renewed icon set available in GIMP 2.10. :-)

The problem with CC and GPL appears to be when you include the icons in binary files. As both CC and GPL forces to mantain the same license in derivative works, is not posible to include the icon in a gimp binary and mantain the software on GPL or mantain the icons in CC, cause is the same file.

The Gimp icons ARE NOT COMPILED, are ONLY USED, and anybody can EXTRACT and MANIPULATE the icons mantaining the CC license restrictions, so, I think it is possible include a set of CC icons in Gimp and this not violate CC and GPL, cause GPL is for code and CC is for the icon theme.

That's also what I thought and what I said earlier on this thread:

I know that the FSF says not to use it for code, but it says it is good for arts though. And I think since themes are not "compiled in" or "linked" to the code,

And Michael Schumacher answered to this by:

They are. Their icons at least, see https://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/tree/themes/Default/images/Makefile.am#n394 ff.

So well now I'm not sure anymore. Though checking the said file, I would not say they are "compiled" in, merely listed as filenames (which could therefore apply to any other set of icons with the same names). Only stock-question-64.png seems kind of compiled as pixel data into gimp-core-pixbufs.h. So I would say that if problem there were for licensing, it would be only on this icon (and since this icon displays a Wilber, I guess it was not in the original set, and you are the author, aren't you?).

Is the same case as help files or plugins. They can use other licenses, cause you can clearly separate the help files or plugin from main gimp application.

I undertand this when reading the Sven mail. I'm wrong or wright?

Then indeed in Sven's email, the FSF person says:

if the software is merely displaying the icons, could just as well display any others, and doesn't rely on specific attributes of those particular icons then they shouldn't be considered derivatives and could be distributed alongside the GPL'd work in mere aggregation (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation)

So here I understand that it can indeed very well apply to icons (even though they might be compiled somehow in some cases?), because a theme and icons are replaceable in "mere aggregation", and there is nothing specific about any icon set.

In any case, I would think that there is no problem at all. But same as the FSF replier said, I am no layer either. The simpler and safer is to re-license. That's why I asked. If all authors license to GPL3+, same as the rest of the code, then we just have no problem altogether, for sure.

Of course, this is only because we may want to distribute this publicly. For any icon set, theme, plugin or whatever which is not distributed (a user made it for himself) or distributed separately and aggregated to GIMP later, then there is no legal issue for the user, who is perfectly allowed to do so.

Jehan

Thank you!
jEsuSdA 8)

On 30.10.2013 23:14, Jehan Pagès wrote:

So well now I'm not sure anymore. Though checking the said file, I would not say they are "compiled" in, merely listed as filenames (which could therefore apply to any other set of icons with the same names). Only stock-question-64.png seems kind of compiled as pixel data into gimp-core-pixbufs.h.

Please read that whole Makefile(.am). And run make in that directory and check the results.

Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD

On 28.10.2013 19:59, scl wrote:

Hi,

in matter of the unclear license situation I asked the FSF for clarification and like to share their answer (see below). It's not a legal advice, but I hope it sheds us some light on the issue.

Unfortunately your mail seems to discard the fact that the icons are run through gdk-pixbuf-csource. So the FSF probably assumed that the icons are included as individual files alongside the binaries.

Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Michael Schumacher wrote:

On 30.10.2013 23:14, Jehan Pagès wrote:

So well now I'm not sure anymore. Though checking the said file, I would not say they are "compiled" in, merely listed as filenames (which could therefore apply to any other set of icons with the same names). Only stock-question-64.png seems kind of compiled as pixel data into gimp-core-pixbufs.h.

Please read that whole Makefile(.am). And run make in that directory and check the results.

Yes I did read the whole Makefile.am, but I don't know how I did not see gimp-stock-pixbufs.h. :-)
Indeed all the default icons are compiled as pixels in a header.

Well the safer and simpler is to ask this Jimmac. If he is from the GNOME project, as I understand, I guess he would have no problem with double-licensing his work under GPLv3+. Is anyone in contact with him and could ask him to make an official answer (maybe on this mailing list or other public place) about it?

Thanks!

Jehan

--
Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Michael Schumacher wrote:

On 28.10.2013 19:59, scl wrote:

Hi,

in matter of the unclear license situation I asked the FSF for clarification and like to share their answer (see below). It's not a legal advice, but I hope it sheds us some light on the issue.

Unfortunately your mail seems to discard the fact that the icons are run through gdk-pixbuf-csource. So the FSF probably assumed that the icons are included as individual files alongside the binaries.

I wonder though. Do we *have to* compile them as source files?

I mean, users can provide their own themes, thus their own icon set too, right? And I assume these icons won't be extracted into source files, since they are loaded at runtime. So that means the default icons could be just provided "alongside" the binaries too, just as third-party's are.

So why do we extract them? Is it like for some efficiency gain reason (like the default theme would be "faster" than any third-party theme)? I mean, there cannot possibly be that a huge gain that it is worth to do so, compared to licensing issues. Or is there any other reason?
Thanks.

Jehan

--
Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

Hello Jimmac,

my name is Jehan. I am a GIMP developer. We are considering releasing the next major release of GIMP with an additional icon set, which goes well with a darker theme. A contributor (jEsuSdA, in Cc) added the missing icons and also made an alternate version which would go with a lighter theme.
See here a photo of the dark theme:
https://plus.google.com/+AlexandreProkoudine/posts/LP1pWr7YEgA And here the light theme: http://www.pasteall.org/pic/show.php?id=60269

It seems you were the original author of the icon set, which maybe you can confirm us by having a look at the screenshots.

If not mistaken, your work is under a Cc by-sa 3.0 license, which is a fine license, but would be a problem for one of the default icon set provided in the official GIMP release, because we actually compile the icons into source code. And the problem is that Creative Common by-sa is not compatible with GPLv3.
So my question is simple: would you accept to double-license this specific set of icons as GPLv3 to allow us to safely include it in our next major release of GIMP?
Thank you very much.

Jehan

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:01 AM, jEsuSdA 8) wrote:

El 29/10/13 01:57, Jehan Pagès escribió:

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM, jEsuSdA 8) wrote:

El 28/10/13 18:37, Alexandre Prokoudine escribió:

Is your theme from October 4 the latest version?

Here is the latest version:

http://www.jesusda.com/files/symbolic-gimp.7z

Reading Sven email about a possible licensing issue, and if I understand, you are the author of the icon set. Would you accept to double license your work under a GPL license? I guess this would simplify the whole discussion and problematic.

I am not the author of all icons. The main work was made by the Gnome Design Team (I think Jimmac has made this nice work). I transformed and created new ones, and I converted all the work to a gimp theme.

I have absolutely no problem to license and relicense this theme. I think there are no problem about that and I made this work not only for me, but for all gimp users.

So, if you think a dual license or relicense of the work it will be fine, then all is ok for me. ;)

Of course, you must ask Jimmac too.

By the way, Sven, which GPL version is the theme?

Anyway yes, I would love to see a dark theme with a renewed icon set available in GIMP 2.10. :-)

The problem with CC and GPL appears to be when you include the icons in binary files. As both CC and GPL forces to mantain the same license in derivative works, is not posible to include the icon in a gimp binary and mantain the software on GPL or mantain the icons in CC, cause is the same file.

The Gimp icons ARE NOT COMPILED, are ONLY USED, and anybody can EXTRACT and MANIPULATE the icons mantaining the CC license restrictions, so, I think it is possible include a set of CC icons in Gimp and this not violate CC and GPL, cause GPL is for code and CC is for the icon theme.

Is the same case as help files or plugins. They can use other licenses, cause you can clearly separate the help files or plugin from main gimp application.

I undertand this when reading the Sven mail. I'm wrong or wright?

Thank you! jEsuSdA 8)

On 3.11.2013 at 12:51 PM Jehan Pagès wrote:> Hello Jimmac,

my name is Jehan. I am a GIMP developer. We are considering releasing the next major release of GIMP with an additional icon set, which goes well with a darker theme. A contributor (jEsuSdA, in Cc) added the missing icons and also made an alternate version which would go with a lighter theme.

[...]

Two people with the same idea ;-) For completeness, here is the mail I've sent to jimmac:

Hi Jakub,

I'm Sven Claussner and have been a GIMP contributor for ca. 1 year. After we spoke in IRC on 30.9.2013 about using your Artlibre icon set for GIMP, some questions on distributing it together with GIMP came up. The plans are to create a dark UI theme together with an extended version of the Artlibre icon set and distribute it as part of GIMP.

Our current problem is a license issue: The GIMP code is mainly under GPLv3 and the icon set under CC-BY-SA3. Looking at the [FSF licence list] I read that GPLv3 and CC-BY-SA2 are mutually incompatible; with no notices about the CC-BY-SA3. I asked the FSF for clarification and their point is, that 'if the software is merely displaying the icons, could just as well display any others, and doesn't rely on specific attributes of those particular icons,' then there's no problem. I'd say, that's clearly the case, but then the doubts arose if this still applies if they are part of the compiled package (IMHO especially in the cases when GIMP comes in an installer package). The artist who created the extensions to the Artlibre icon set would have no problem to license it under GPLv3.

You can also follow this [discussion] on the GIMP-developer mailing list.

Can you give us an answer on how to proceed now, please? Is it safe or do we have or need the agreement of the ArtLibre creators to ship it with GIMP?
Should I better bring up this topic on the GNOME desktop-devel-list?

I'd be grateful for your answer, preferably on the GIMP developer list.

Thank you in advance,

Sven

[FSF licence list]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses

[discussion]: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2013-October/msg00020.html

Hi,

Jakub Steiner answered me. He and Barbara Muraus (the other icon designer who created the ArtLibre icon set) are ok with relicensing it under the GPLv3. We agreed to mention their names in the sources.

Jehan, if you have planned to work on this, please let me know to save us from duplication of work ;-)

Kind regards,

Sven

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:59 AM, scl wrote:

Hi,

Jakub Steiner answered me. He and Barbara Muraus (the other icon designer who created the ArtLibre icon set) are ok with relicensing it under the GPLv3. We agreed to mention their names in the sources.

Jehan, if you have planned to work on this, please let me know to save us from duplication of work ;-)

No, no prob, go on. I'm not planning to do any work that someone else is willing to do instead. :p

Jehan

Kind regards,

Sven

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

Hi jEsuSdA,

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:08 AM, jEsuSdA 8) wrote:

El 05/11/13 16:59, scl escribió:

Hi,

Jakub Steiner answered me. He and Barbara Muraus (the other icon designer who created the ArtLibre icon set) are ok with relicensing it under the GPLv3. We agreed to mention their names in the sources.

Jehan, if you have planned to work on this, please let me know to save us from duplication of work ;-)

Kind regards,

Sven

Great news, Sven!

If you need any help I can give you, please let me know.

Today I've wanted to actually check the theme and see how it is, other than as a screenshot. Your archive found in http://www.jesusda.com/files/symbolic-gimp.7z is the last version? Also it looks like it comprises only the icons for the light background theme, doesn't it?
Where are the original light icons for a dark background theme?

Regards,

Jehan

Salu2 de jEsuSdA 8)

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:27 AM, jEsuSdA 8) wrote:

El 25/11/13 07:05, Jehan Pagès escribió:

Also it looks like it comprises only the icons for the light background theme, doesn't it?

Here the light one:

http://www.jesusda.com/files/symbolic-gimp_light.7z

Thanks jEsuSdA!

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Jehan Pagès wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:59 AM, scl wrote:

Hi,

Jakub Steiner answered me. He and Barbara Muraus (the other icon designer who created the ArtLibre icon set) are ok with relicensing it under the GPLv3. We agreed to mention their names in the sources.

Jehan, if you have planned to work on this, please let me know to save us from duplication of work ;-)

No, no prob, go on. I'm not planning to do any work that someone else is willing to do instead. :p

Actually Sven, I was thinking if you would mind if I set up a feature branch for this? I have already started to have a look now, and also already fixed some bug on the darken images.

I will also set up the wiki page that you wished, so that we can all work together. Is it good?

I have a friend who wants to help to complete the missing stock icons. Also am I right to assume that we want to have *all* icons in this style, and get rid of all the generic GTK+ icons too?

Jehan

Jehan

Kind regards,

Sven

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:24 PM, jEsuSdA 8) wrote:

El 27/11/13 07:04, Jehan Pagès escribió:

Also am I right to assume that we want to have*all* icons in this

style, and get rid of all the generic GTK+ icons too?

I like it!
When using a desktop icon theme like Faenza, Gimp looks like great, but if you use another more colorful icon theme, it looks like a bit strange. :D

Ok I'll make a small list of all the missing icons. There seems to be quite a few. And I'll add it in a wiki pageof wiki.gimp.org. Since there may be several designer who want to give a try to draw the missing icons, I guess I'll ask to every one who wants to do so to write his name in front of an icon before starting to create it.

I'll follow up with the link later.

Jehan

I want to help to do that! ;)

Salu2 de jEsuSdA 8)

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list