Thank you, God, for my wish has come true. Props, Lokheed

Thank you.

Wow, is there something we actually *can* do with it?

--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Of course, You may look at it and enjoy Stanley's work!

The stipulations are written facetiously; out of great respect for Stanley and the protection of his work (and the contempt I have for people who steal artwork). Despite contrary public opinion, I do have a sense of humour, though sometimes not quite apparent without visual queues (ie., body language).

Cheers

--
"Evolution is a tinkerer, not an architect"

amazing WP

--
Portfolio Download > [link]
I love you my Specialrose!

Well, of course I also hate people who steal artwork and claim it as their own, but on the other hand I'm a big open source and free software fan, and I believe that licenses similar to GPL can be used for artwork as well. When proper credit is given to the original author, what's wrong with derivative works? I can, for example, imagine someone modifying this to be green instead of red and release it as "Twerk a Little by Stanley, Green Mod by xxx". Why wouldn't that be OK? You seem to be a nice person after all, and I like your GTK+ themes a lot, but I was kinda disappointed when you took down the modification of your theme from [link] some time ago. Well, of course you do have a right to do that, but I believe this world would be a better place if it was just more... free! Unfortunatly, people who just want to steal artwork probably don't stop at seeing a long copyright notice in the description, in the same way that people who steal computer games don't stop at a CD-key check.

--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

First let me start by saying that Stanley himself wanted a copyright on the work (and has every right to do so). He was nice enough to allow it to be a public piece, but wanted to retain the rights to Pepper (and again, has every right to do so without criticism).

Open source is fine, but the GPL community has a terrible tendency to take whatever they want (various works around the internet) and release them as wallpapers for GNOME, GDM themes, KDE boot screens, etc. under the GPL license. This greatly tarnishes the GPL reputation and puts forth to the general public that GPL means you are obsolved from licensing issues. The real fact is that when someone spends a lot of time on anything (be it a wallpaper or a visual theme for the OS), they would like credit. Most artists just want that, the credit they rightfully deserve. This is robbed of them when individuals take the said work, modify it, and release it without mention or notice of it's release to the author. Now Theme T is called "Green T" or "Mod T" and all credit is lost from the original author.

This type of behaviour is worse yet when the original theme was released with a (C), and the modded version is now released under GPL. Not to mention that most people don't bother to do their research and correctly site the original author correctly (how many times have I been referred to as "Lockhead" or "lokkhed"). Admittedly (to exemplify my point), you didn't correctly site the author in your comment: Twerk a Little by Stanley; this wallpaper was done by me, not Stanley. This is all it takes to drop credit to the author. This also opens the flood gates to people modding the mod and continuing to release it under GPL. Now if even credit is given, it is given to the mod and not the original author.

The sad fact is this happens everywhere, but places like gnome-look.org/kde-look.org almost seem to endorse it. Peruse their forums and you will see copyright violations in almost every page (mostly wallpapers and GDM themes) without fail. Technically because gnome-look/kde-look host the files on their servers, they are in fact liable for the content. Places like that drag down the name of Linux and Open Source in general.

You are right in claiming copyrights don't stop thieves, but they offer recourse and do limit copies. They do not stop people, but they do help in curbing. It really lies on the community; getting people to stop and shout down those that steal. If no one downloads the material and ostracizes the individual, then we can curb things even further.

I don't understand why people push for GPL. Is this wallpaper (as is all my work) not free? Do I charge to download my Clearlooks Graphite Theme? There is also no one stopping you from modifying and using it (the mod) for your own personal use. Yet some people are still not happy they get all this free. They want what now? Fame from the work of others? I can grap images that authors have spent dozens of hours on and change the hue, release them under my own name, and then (since most users don't even read) take nearly all the credit (even if I do cite the author). Is that fair? GPL has it's uses in technology (hard software with a function; code), but falls apart when you are dealing with something aesthetic, viz., art.

Specifically dealing with this release, it is a transparent PNG, and as such, specifying the background colour is left up to individual. I think that is quite a nice feature that most wallpapers don't have.

The biggest irony here is that GPL is still a license

Arguably, I also have a rationally defensible argument for artwork that is licensed to a corporation and one that has not made a substantial profit for the individual (and remains their property), but that is best saved for another thread and another day.

--
"Evolution is a tinkerer, not an architect"

I said "licenses similar to GPL" because I know perfectly well that GPL is not meant for artwork. I was thinking more along the lines of some CC licenses, for example Attribution-ShareAlike which clearly states that you must give credit to the original author, and you can't change the license so everyone else will also have to give proper credit.

Changing something for my own needs is fine, but if it's something at least a bit reasonable change then someone else might also put it to good use, and it could spare him some work if the first person could release it. And no matter if it's a simple color change or for example a completely new theme only slightly based on the first one.

As Richard Stallman says, your work is free as in "free beer", but not free as in "freedom". There are surely assholes who want fame they don't deserve by copying it, but there are surely people who just want to freely share what they have done, and also improve what others have done and shared. Aren't you one of them too? You are creating Tango themes for various software, and nobody considers it stealing, althought you use icons already created by different people.

And it's no irony that GPL is a license, it's actually probably the most important fact about it. GPL gives you freedom to do a lot of things with a piece of software, including modifying it and further distributing, but also introduces a few very important limitations, like that you can't change the license of the modified product, which provides that it stays free!

--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

"You are creating Tango themes for various software, and nobody considers it stealing, althought you use icons already created by different people."

No one considers it stealing because Tango is released under CC-Share-Alike license. You are most certainly allowed to created derivatives. I also release them under the CC-Share-Alike license. Granted I had not stipulated such licenses for any work with Tango icons, but I will go back to each release and make the necessary changes.

To bring more programs in tune with the Tango "movement" is a goal of mine, and I will certainly adhere to their licenses, but I will never release my themes or any other piece that is designed outside of any already current "trend." I feel strongly about protecting my work and this will never change.

Again, I spend hours on these and could vary well just post screenshots (cruel I know) or nothing at all...so.

--
"Evolution is a tinkerer, not an architect"