Non-free Logo Policies

[AriaSalvatrice]

What is Cardinal's policy regarding non-libre logos?

For example, logos that are used as trademarks, or that are a person's name, and that are included with the provision that forks must change the branding.

By nature those assets can't be offered under libre terms, but unless an asset is both no-derivs and embedding a brand logo directly, I believe it doesn't present an obstacle to forking.

The way I personally do it is to provide my copyrighted logo as a separate graphic composited on the faceplates at runtime.

These questions are also covered by section 7 of the GPL3.

[falkTX]

Wouldn't we just use common sense for this case? If the brand requires renaming, then we do so..? Or just remove the branding altogether.

IMO the maximum we should go is CC-NC, but still discourage new modules from using such artwork license. An exception is made for Core and Fundamental CC-ND, because of how commonplace they are.

The list of modules is not that extensive, so we can just go on a case-by-case basis. I do want to have the licenses clearly listed on https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/blob/main/doc/LICENSES.md, but did not do this part yet. We should have a table for the artwork license after the code license one. Contributions welcome for that.

[VegaDeftwing]

I'm interested in having my modules, https://github.com/VegaDeftwing/LyraeModules, in Cardinal; however, my graphics are CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, would this still be acceptable?

[falkTX]

Yes, since CC-NC is sadly quite commonplace for VCV modules. It goes against the ideals of the GPL license and it is not recommended for use by the FSF (authors of the GPL).

Most people do not fully grasp what CC-NC means and just follow what others did. At this point I think we are too late to change course, way too many modules use CC-NC now. A bit ironic that CC-NC forbids the artwork from being used commercially, but Rack Pro still found a way to indirectly profit from such things anyway..

[VegaDeftwing]

I'm fully aware of the meaning of the licence I chose and have my reasons for choosing it. I also wouldn't go after someone using my module in for-profit YouTube video either, I would however go after someone using it in a commercial module of their own or using it on like a coffee cup or something. The code I think being open is a benefit to others, the art I do not. I have shared how I made the art with quite a few people though. (basically just using https://noisedeck.app and Inkscape)

Anyway, yeah, I'd like to have my modules included. They should be able to build for VCV Rack V2 from the V2 branch, let me know if any other changes are needed to make them work in Cardinal.

[falkTX]

Well the CC-NC clause makes it impossible to package in a linux distribution for example, because the artwork could be inside a magazine or ISO that is sold as part of some more-complete package. This makes such models incompatible with things like UbuntuStudio. Typically linux distributions see CC-NC as a non-free license (free as in freedom)

There are also other commercial aspects that are not always thought of but get forbidden as a side-effect, for example I am not allowed to ask for donations on the Cardinal project because that would be considered commercial. And while you personally might not go after youtubers, reviewers, etc that reuse the artwork, it is still not allowed per the license (I mean, placing the panel artwork on the thumbnail of a monetized youtube video seems to me like commercial use)

I can surely understand the reasons, it is just sad that there are quite a lot of side effects. Also without the panels/artwork, the value of the code reduces a lot, because it is the code + artwork that make the final product.

CC-NC is just not a good license in my opinion. CC-SA simply by itself is more alike what GPL is, so others are forced to share-alike any changes made to the artwork. While you and many others want to prevent exploitation, the non-commercial clause really feels like the wrong approach to the problem.

With all that said, adding your modules as-is should be ok, thanks for the interest. If not imported by me, someone else might do it. Or you can also do it yourself and send a pull request, https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/discussions/28 describes the steps needed.

[falkTX]

@VegaDeftwing added your modules just now, https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/commit/153608dea4067bfa07275932160c22e9b87e78ea

[falkTX]

Coming back to this, "non-free" (better said copyrighted or protected) artwork is actually quite fine. If a protected artwork has restrictions on its use, we simply need to ask for permission. This is now briefly mentioned in the readme:

Any artwork that uses a custom license has had explicit permission to be used in Cardinal

Such permissions are to be written in https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/blob/main/doc/LICENSE-PERMISSIONS.md

@AriaSalvatrice is that okay with you? Clear enough?

[jn64]

For anyone looking, the relevant docs are now at:

• https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/blob/main/docs/LICENSE-PERMISSIONS.md
• https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal/blob/main/docs/LICENSES.md#artwork--panel-licenses