Menu
▾
▴
#2226 license violation for the rubber duck?
None
fixed
nobody
None
1
2017-11-12
2017-08-03
Anonymous
No
Does the rubber duck match with the license of the package and is the attribution (=none) correct?
https://sourceforge.net/p/texstudio/hg/ci/default/tree/images/egg.png could be this one
http://ellieislc.weebly.com/food.html
I could not see a license information. Perhaps we are not allowed to distribute this picture that way, which would be problematic for Linux packages.
It was the first rubber duck image on wikipedia ( http://web.archive.org/web/20111014112504/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck), and marked as freely available afair.
Although now they have deleted all rubber ducks, since the concept of rubber ducks itself might be copyrighted https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Rubber_ducks
Last edit: Benito van der Zander 2017-08-04
Thank you for the fast reply. That is interesting. I was not aware of that. What are the plans now? Please bump the version number, if you release a clean version. It would brake our packages else...
The ticket was closed, but the solution is not clear. Could you write a line, which action was taken, if any?
no action has been taken.
So, we don't think the image is a license violation?
What about the following solution: We could ask on tex.sx, if someone is willing to prepare a tex-code for a yellow duck. We can add the duck plus the source code and attribute the creator. This would even have some connection to tex and the unlucky license problem is solved.
Could do. However, I'm not in favor of it. IMO we should either we leave it as is or remove it. Everything else is not worth the effort. I'm still not clear if the image may be a license violation.
Could you reopen the ticket, please?
For a clean open source project it is important that all external files have the appropriate licence which should be tracable. As far I understand the situation, many ducks were deleted on commons, because they were a derived work from a non-free duck but the deletion article is not very clear about that. TXS does not attribute the author, license and source of the picture either.
If Commons deleted the picture without reason AND the author licensed the picture as PD, the chances are high, that there is no license problem.
Your suggestion to remove the easteregg completely would find many friends
https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/332307/how-to-turn-off-the-yellow-duck-in-texstudio
If you think, that the picture was not legal to copy and distribute, you should rebase the repository.
This would be my favourite solution too, but it is your decision.
I am looking forward to your solution, so that we can have a recent texstudio with a clean License (in Gentoo Linux) again soon. It is really a blocker, because license violations can get very nasty and are a blocker for open source.
we need to know what was at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rubber_Duck.jpg
I think wikipedia admins can still see it. I wrote a mail to the admin who deleted the duck
Any news?
No response
Perhaps someone knows another wikipedia admin?
What do you think about this duck as alternative? https://www.ctan.org/pkg/tikzducks
It even has a connection with TeX and we get this thing to an end after 2 months.
Or alternatively removing it at all?
Both fine by me.
To get this out of the way, I propose to simply remove the picture. Please speak up, if you do not agree.
I thought the tikz ducks look nice
Ok, then let's use these. Any particular preference?
Ok, I've take the action to replace the image by the basic tikzduck. This is good enough for me. You are free to add more styling if you like.
hg 6832 (2aeb0f0de369)