Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Material Design Icons

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: Material Design Icons

#31

Post by vec »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #30
vec wrote: post #25

> All icons are released under an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. That's a bit disappointing. Adding a spot attributions to the page can sometimes be a nonstarter for a lot of the designers I work with. I really wish more design assets would opt for something more like an MIT license.

Lots of people like to include things in a larger work without crediting the sources for their designs. If a given design was under an MIT license, it would still have to be attributed somewhere since the copyright still resides with the original designer/copyright-holder. The license states: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software…

I'm not a lawyer, so my reading of the licenses may be wrong. If so, please do correct me.

As far as I understand, MIT-style license requirements can be satisfied by comments in the HTML or CSS whereas Creative Commons Attribution style licenses require the attribution to be visible to the end user.

Re: Material Design Icons

#32

Post by eyko »

vec wrote: post #31
JohnTHaller wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people like to include things in a larger work without crediting the sources for their designs. If a given design was under an MIT license, it would still have to be attributed somewhere since the copyright still resides with the original designer/copyright-holder. The license states: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software…

I'm not a lawyer, so my reading of the licenses may be wrong. If so, please do correct me. As far as I understand, MIT-style license requirements can be satisfied by comments in the HTML or CSS whereas Creative Commons Attribution style licenses require the attribution to be visible to the end user.

It was my understanding (or interpretation) that Creative Commons Attribution could go in a different page. I normally add a Copyright or License link in the footer that leads to a page with a list of software and artwork used in the app. Otherwise, I just put a comment in the caption if it's a one off thing.

Either way, I don't see what the issue is with designers not wanting to attribute.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

"You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."

Re: Material Design Icons

#33

Post by JohnTHaller »

eyko wrote: post #32
vec wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer, so my reading of the licenses may be wrong. If so, please do correct me. As far as I understand, MIT-style license requirements can be satisfied by comments in the HTML or CSS whereas Creative Commons Attribution style licenses require the attribution to be visible to the end user.

It was my understanding (or interpretation) that Creative Commons Attribution could go in a different page. I normally add a Copyright or License link in the footer that leads to a page with a list of software and artwork used in the app. Otherwise, I just put a comment in the caption if it's a one off thing. Either way, I don't see what the issue is with designers not wanting to attribute. https://creativecommons.or…

Based on my earlier discussions with legal folks, a separate page is just fine. For websites, I link the Copyright 20XX wording in the footer to a page that includes mention of all the sources of designs, themes, etc, even when not required.

Re: Material Design Icons

#34

Post by JohnTHaller »

vec wrote: post #31
JohnTHaller wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people like to include things in a larger work without crediting the sources for their designs. If a given design was under an MIT license, it would still have to be attributed somewhere since the copyright still resides with the original designer/copyright-holder. The license states: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software…

I'm not a lawyer, so my reading of the licenses may be wrong. If so, please do correct me. As far as I understand, MIT-style license requirements can be satisfied by comments in the HTML or CSS whereas Creative Commons Attribution style licenses require the attribution to be visible to the end user.

I don't know if an HTML comment would satisfy the requirement for an image. Then again, MIT is source code license and not designed for images anyway. CC licenses are designed for all kinds of things. The designers in this case wanted attribution, so the choice is to either use it and attribute or not use it.

It's worth nothing that CC-BY-SA is incompatible with the GPL and similar licenses, so you would not be able to compile the images from Material Design into a GPLed app. You can include them with a GPLed app and load them at runtime, though.

Re: Material Design Icons

#35

Post by thoughtpalette »

sehr wrote: post #27
thoughtpalette wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. npm should be node dependencies and bower is library/framework dependencies.

No. NPM is used all the time for front end specific dependencies. Even angular uses it now

Oh, good to know. I'll look into the reasoning for that.
Post reply on HN