Salix Design

If you have any suggestions or ideas about improving Salix, here's the place to post them.
missTell
Posts: 28
Joined: 19. Apr 2018, 06:45

Re: Salix Design

Post by missTell » 2. Dec 2020, 12:10

That's not the same wallpaper.
Than I rememberd wrong and it belongs to another icon set.
I'll check and let you now later.

Can you do that please?
I could try! Which walls you had in mind?


Thanks for the tree!

User avatar
gapan
Salix Wizard
Posts: 5695
Joined: 6. Jun 2009, 17:40

Re: Salix Design

Post by gapan » 2. Dec 2020, 12:25

missTell wrote:
2. Dec 2020, 12:10
That's not the same wallpaper.
Than I rememberd wrong and it belongs to another icon set.
I'll check and let you now later.
No, it's there. It's just that the HD one is a different wallpaper.
missTell wrote:
2. Dec 2020, 12:10
Can you do that please?
I could try! Which walls you had in mind?
I don't know. I guess the city one is OK. Maybe the windmills too, but with a different background color than yellow? Not sure, maybe yellow would work out too. The snow one is probably too simple?
Image
Image

missTell
Posts: 28
Joined: 19. Apr 2018, 06:45

Re: Salix Design

Post by missTell » 2. Dec 2020, 20:00

The problem I see is that this certainly falls under "derivative work". If you don't have a license that allows you do it, you just can't use it.
Partially you're right, partially wrong.
You'll have to overthink that one.
The point is where what starts.

I get the importance of 'free' and 'original', but it's not all that simple.

If you look for a 'sun', 'moon', 'hill', 'mountains', 'minimalistic', 'flat' ... you'll end up on thousands of similar images.
When you think of them as single parts, they are all just a collection of silhouettes, circles, ellipsoids, squares ...
There's a little new one can 'invent', that nobody ever before did, and that's truth even for the huge companies.

They all look alike - the artworks.

If this was the original https://ibb.co/YLMXyG9, then we have to prohibit/avoid: https://ibb.co/9rJQhFK?

This one is just another version of the same: https://ibb.co/9Ywz9kw.

Only one can be the 'original' and all others are 'copycats'.

[* But nice to play with.]

https://ibb.co/d6R4h3y https://ibb.co/5K0v2Vg

What do you see here? Yellow square, black ellipse and ... don't know how to call those four single parts that together make a windmill ...

https://ibb.co/WVZDK4C

[* Again nice to play with.]

https://ibb.co/Lt5wj1f https://ibb.co/TYPk413

Are we now prohibiting the use of blue squares, black ellipses and some circles?

Then this one is gone too ... https://ibb.co/kh9cH1c

Once the couple is in the moon, another time climber, wolf, horse, giraffe, deer, palm tree ... you name it.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=de-CH& ... e&tbm=isch

https://www.google.com/search?q=minimal ... e&tbm=isch

Kind of, the art consists of stolen ideas and 'everything is a stolen art'.

https://people.salixos.org/gapan/artwor ... lpaper.png

... is basically Apple 2000 ~ 2005 which was copied by KDE.

Think of Piet Mondrian and/or https://youtu.be/9aGRHOpMRUg ...

Similar backgrounds (white canvas), even Apple and Microsoft/Nokia use as wallpapers.

https://ibb.co/r0nCYVz https://ibb.co/P54YFFJ

The Art Is Strange (and everybody copies, if he wasn't the first one who did it).

One way or the other, we'll not stay without a wallpaper. 😉

missTell
Posts: 28
Joined: 19. Apr 2018, 06:45

Re: Salix Design

Post by missTell » 2. Dec 2020, 20:10


User avatar
gapan
Salix Wizard
Posts: 5695
Joined: 6. Jun 2009, 17:40

Re: Salix Design

Post by gapan » 2. Dec 2020, 23:44

You still don't get it. That's still derivative work. You don't have the right to do it.

A drawing of some windmills on a hill may be different than another drawing of some other windmills on another hill and not be derivative work.

But this is not the case here, these are the exact same windmills, on the exact same hill. It's pixel-to-pixel identical. And no, I'm not saying that if you change some pixels it won't be derivative work.

This is a complicated legal matter and you're not allowed to make clumsy assumptions.
Image
Image

missTell
Posts: 28
Joined: 19. Apr 2018, 06:45

Re: Salix Design

Post by missTell » 3. Dec 2020, 10:31

I admit that I really don't get it, but I'm trying to - so please explain it to me, if you do understand.


As of 'windmills' and the 'city' - I get it.

They are exactly the same and I even wrote:

[* But nice to play with.]

[* Again nice to play with.]

Those examples should have been an answer and example to/for:
I guess the city one is OK. Maybe the windmills too, but with a different background color than yellow?
Even if I didn't explicitly write it.


However, I actually don't get it when it comes down to pure idea.

Please take a look at:

Aurora Wallpaper by Josh Dick for Mac OS X 10.3 Panther:

https://www.deviantart.com/joshdickdotnet

https://www.wallpaperflare.com/aurora-m ... aper-qtoya

(He had DA account, deleted it and reopened and that's why the original old works are missing, but it was this one: https://wallpapersafari.com/w/0bCWdE)

We can see many other virtually the same works as for example this here:

https://www.deviantart.com/snowpilot (https://wallpapersafari.com/w/Mnqirx)

Now my "clumsy assumption" here or there, if it would be that big of a problem and such a "complicated legal matter", this here should/would never be able to stay online - side by side and on the very same platform.

https://www.deviantart.com/skinniouschi ... c-41897490

If anybody took the wallpaper matters any serious, this would never be possible:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/186452107 ... ed-public/

https://www.google.com/search?q=windows ... s&tbm=isch

https://www.google.com/search?q=windows ... s&tbm=isch

http://wallpaperswide.com/windows_10-de ... apers.html

We're not talking about some art masterpieces.


For falsified Picasso or Dali, one would get a legal problem for sure, but I never heard of anybody having the same problem with a wallpaper - they are in most cases not copyrighted material (remember Mac-Like KDE3?).

And ... what about Windows and Mac-like icon sets, themes, cursors ... even the directly 'inspired by Mac' Docky, Plank etc. Even Xfce dock is 'stolen' from Mac. If anybody took it that 'sh*t serious', one could make the whole Linux illegal.

https://www.linuxuprising.com/2020/10/w ... gnome.html


* Maybe you could have a look at https://unsplash.com/ and https://pixabay.com/ and their licensing models.

User avatar
gapan
Salix Wizard
Posts: 5695
Joined: 6. Jun 2009, 17:40

Re: Salix Design

Post by gapan » 3. Dec 2020, 14:28

missTell wrote:
3. Dec 2020, 10:31
However, I actually don't get it when it comes down to pure idea.
But that's not what's going on here.
missTell wrote:
3. Dec 2020, 10:31
Please take a look at:

...
Yep. If someone were to enforce copyrights, they would all be liable for infringment.
missTell wrote:
3. Dec 2020, 10:31
We can see many other virtually the same works as for example this here:
...

Now my "clumsy assumption" here or there, if it would be that big of a problem and such a "complicated legal matter", this here should/would never be able to stay online - side by side and on the very same platform.
...

If anybody took the wallpaper matters any serious, this would never be possible:
...
"Others are also doing it" is not a valid defense.

And we are taking these matters very seriously.
missTell wrote:
3. Dec 2020, 10:31
We're not talking about some art masterpieces.
Art is art. Copyrights are copyrights. There is no legal containment of copyrights on "masterpieces".
missTell wrote:
3. Dec 2020, 10:31
And ... what about Windows and Mac-like icon sets, themes, cursors ... even the directly 'inspired by Mac' Docky, Plank etc. Even Xfce dock is 'stolen' from Mac. If anybody took it that 'sh*t serious', one could make the whole Linux illegal.
You switched to talking about art to talking about software mid-sentence. It's not the same thing.
missTell wrote:
3. Dec 2020, 10:31
* Maybe you could have a look at https://unsplash.com/ and https://pixabay.com/ and their licensing models.
Unsplash is very clear about their licensing (which makes everything there OK). I haven't looked into pixabay.
Image
Image

User avatar
ChuangTzu
Donor
Posts: 352
Joined: 19. May 2015, 23:34

Re: Salix Design

Post by ChuangTzu » 4. Dec 2020, 04:02

gapan is absolutely correct. There is a huge difference between what you do personally and what can be done publicly. Your personal decisions only have consequences if you are caught violating the license agreement. Salix would be immediately responsible the moment it published a violating picture etc.... Think FLOSS and FOSS GPL, WTFPL etc... If it doesn't have the four freedoms or at least say explicitly that you are free to use, modify, redistribute etc... then it can't be altered and reused, especially publicly.
Image
Image

missTell
Posts: 28
Joined: 19. Apr 2018, 06:45

Re: Salix Design

Post by missTell » 4. Dec 2020, 14:22

ChuangTzu wrote:
4. Dec 2020, 04:02
gapan is absolutely correct. [...] Salix would be immediately responsible the moment it published a violating picture etc....
Nope, he's not and neither are you.

He could have been right, but ...

There seems to be some misunderstanding here.

This here wouldn't be legally correct:

https://ibb.co/WVZDK4C  https://ibb.co/Lt5wj1f  https://ibb.co/TYPk413

https://ibb.co/9Ywz9kw  https://ibb.co/d6R4h3y  https://ibb.co/5K0v2Vg

..., BUT even if one would do it, nobody would bother. The simple reason:

1. One has to discover it at all first

2. One has to WARN you to remove it second

3. If you ignore the warning, they must warn you again

4. After all, one can go to the court and make the claim - in foreign country

However, that's anyway out of discussion - we're trying to get the original works legally.

I posted all that here together with words 'nice to play with' as a part of an answer to gapan's 

"I don't know. I guess the city one is OK. Maybe the windmills too, but with a different background color than yellow?"

I just didn't write that explicitly down, as I expected that you'll understand that anyway.

That was also the reason why I posted 640x320 Px 'miniatures'.

We're also just discussing and collecting ideas.

Such reworked art belongs to it.

Now, if somebody would really want to make a legal claim against Salix or Open Source, they could do it right now.

Salix comes without the codecs preinstalled, BUT it offers an easy way to install them.

Salix is also using Xfce with primitive sort of Mac-Dock.

Long story short - you wouldn't get fined at the end, but you'll have to prove '1001' detail - if somebody would really care for a claim against Salix.

ChuangTzu wrote:
4. Dec 2020, 04:02
Think FLOSS and FOSS GPL, WTFPL etc...  If it doesn't have the four freedoms or at least say explicitly that you are free to use, modify, redistribute etc...
You're free to use it, if you like it - I'm the one deciding on the licensing model.


P.S.
Why the things are sized and positioned as they are, has a good reason.
https://ibb.co/f4tjB8C

P.P.S.
Why this thread 'burns'?? https://ibb.co/DCtZ2xt

User avatar
ChuangTzu
Donor
Posts: 352
Joined: 19. May 2015, 23:34

Re: Salix Design

Post by ChuangTzu » 4. Dec 2020, 21:11

Until you grasp the legality and seriousness of copyright protection and licensing your attempt to "help" will go nowhere, and no amount of rambling will change that. :idea:
Image
Image

Post Reply