Images and Open Source Licenses

Suppose we have some icons which use the LGPL such as the popular Crystal SVG icon set and we want to use them in some website documentation. So we have some XML/HTML documents which link via anchor tags to the PNG versions of the icons. The question is, do the XML/HTML documents count as derivative works of the library or not?

Section 5 and 6 of the LGPL cover this matter. In section 5 we find:

  5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or
linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library".  Such a
work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and
therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
  However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library
creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the
library".  The executable is therefore covered by this License.
Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.

I could see that the XML/HTML source could be considered, in isolation, a “work that uses the Library” but, when presented as a complete, browse-able website, does that work then become a “derivative work” in which case we need to turn to section 6 for the terms of use?

The difference may be subtle, but is important. Section 6 lists a number of requirements which derivative works must meet. If the website is only a “work which uses the library” then using the artwork places no restrictions on the author. Personally, I think that may be a bit of a stretch since the XML/HTML documents are not compiled or presented in an executable with the artwork library at any time. But the exact implications here are fuzzy enough for me to be hesitant and wish I were a lawyer.

Another example is using the artwork as a component in a larger bitmap image. In this case, I believe the new image could probably be counted as a strict deriviative of the artwork and thus be under the LGPL and not qualify for the exceptions under section 6. Or would it? If we try to follow the software analogy, the software library becomes incorporated into the larger software product, yet that software product qualfies for section 6 exceptions. Thus perhaps my Avalon diagram I made a few days ago also qualifies under section 6 since I made no adjustments to the source of the icons themselves. This means as long as I followed the requirements of section 6, I could re-license my image under anything I wanted.

Confused yet?

This is what happens when you stretch a license past its intended use. This is also why the Creative Commons were established.

I am grateful for all the artists and developers who, like I, spend significant amounts of our own time to offer quality products under open source and free licenses. I just wish more creators were more careful in picking their license rather than just going with the popular and familiar regardless of applicability.