[openbeos] Re: Icon Artwork

  • From: "Jonas Sundström" <jonas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:51:51 +0200 CEST

"Cian Duffy" <myob87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 29/07/06, Stephan Assmus <superstippi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Cian,
> >
> > > Be had some arrangement to let you use the icons freely,
> > > IIRC, but I believe an email either to or from Be was 
> > > required to do so. Someone with a dump of be.com
> > > from 1999/2000 could check for sure; but until someone
> > > with both EU and US legal knowledge has had a look at
> > > said agreement, using them is dodgy.
> >
> > Who exactly is "us" and was there no limit on the purpose?
> US = United States, I don't think I used the word to mean a 
> group of people in this section... 

Perhaps Stephan was thinking of the "you" in
"Be had some arrangement to let you use the icons freely".

> And I really can't remember,
> but I believe there was effective free reign granted. 
> All I can see on the website is that if you got permission 
> you had to state you'd got it.

Be's statement:

> Now, who you'd ask for
> permission now is another story entirely, I don't know the 
> icon rights went with the code to Palm and hence Access;
> or stayed with Be which appears to have liquidated entirely
> by this stage.

Good question. I believe all IP was transferred, except for 
the name of Be and the right to sue Microsoft and keep the 
winnings. The icons must have been transfered. I highly 
doubt that Be kept the icons, of all things, and I doubt that 
Palm made the contract more complex by adding a para-
graph stating they take all of Be's IP -except- the icons. :))

Now, whether or not property can be "intellectual"
is a good question.

/Jonas Sundström.                      www.kirilla.com

Other related posts: