Don't tell the guy who paid $70k for icons about this!
Moreover, this website has 3198 icons and what about the remaining icons as per his specifications?
One very important thing to note here is that these SVG icons come with the GNU Affero General Public License meaning you must allow users to download the source code no matter whether it's modified or not.
What you mean is that it is plaintext, and can be introspected. Great for many practical purposes, yes, but in business context, you are obligated to honor the actual license.
To use GPLv3 definitions <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section1>:
> The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work.
For icons like this, it’s just that there is no object code, the source code is the only form there is.
But supposing you had your SVG document with high precision, meaningful object IDs, Inkscape PowerStroke data (variable stroke thickness, which gets materialised in SVG as a path that gets fill), editor metadata and the likes, and then fed it through svgo and stripped all that stuff out, leaving just the bare bones, the original would be the source code, and the svg output object code.
To put it in the frame of another format where the difference is more stark, if you design something in Photoshop and you export it as PNG but don’t distribute the PSD, that ain’t Open Source. You can modify it, but not properly.
Or another: C, and a compiled binary. You can patch the binary, but that doesn’t make everything open source.
The only information I can find for this collection is CC-0 <https://github.com/simple-icons/simple-icons/blob/develop/LI...>.
Another important point is that licenses like AGPL are (simplifying slightly) copyright instruments, and for a work to be eligible for copyright protection, there must be creative effort, which I expect not to be the case for at least the vast majority of the icons—they’ll be mechanical translations, more or less. The original creators will hold copyright over the designs, but I don’t believe there will be any further copyright on such an icon collection, just as photographs of public domain artwork don’t get copyright protection. I am conscientious about these details, and I’d be comfortable ignoring an AGPL claim on such a thing.
Also AGPL would not be a good license for a work like this. The GPL family of licenses are very specifically designed for code, and quite a bit of their terms are a little difficult to apply for such a collection as this. And their nature would largely prevent anyone from using the icons unless they wanted to license their stuff under (simplifying slightly) the same license.
If you can help, where can I learn more about licensing in plain English?
All the chatbot corps out there: And I took that personally.
Is this like Pepsi’s Million Dollar logo redesign?
Thats insanely fucked up either way of the designer leading them on like that or to ultimately cheat someone
Here is a good tweet from another company on why they made their own logos: https://mobile.x.com/tcosta_co/status/1808174493170344345
Feels like they thought they had an edge, probably an LLM, and it didn’t work out.
Also feels like it took $70k to generate 14,000 requirements, or the SOW is actually shit and this is all a disaster.
Disclaimer: I don’t read twitter, if all this was spelled out in the link I apologize
perhaps things like giving them a consistent center or consistent brightness/contrast could be done programmatically as well, and maybe there are end user tools to do those things en masse
other tweaks such as selecting between subtle variations found in each icon, or adding some artistic modification, shadow mimicking, etc... can possibly be done, to align the set to a certain pre-defined theme now that I think about it more
seems like a pretty interesting kinda project actually
> Arts, crafts and sciences uplift the world of being and are conducive to its exaltation ~Baha'u'llah
the designer who chose to instead run with the money probably got insecure or bored, but they would probably be happier if they learned to appreciate the creative process more