Elegant Login Linux

GDM Themes

Source (link to git-repo or to original if based on someone elses unmodified work): Add the source-code for this project on opencode.net



12 years ago

Generally ok for creative use and considered acceptable a(non-commercial) fair-use.



12 years ago

Turns out the copyright laws on non commercial, educational and personal use are pretty fair and as long as you state the sources it's usually cool.

So I can't see me stopping anytime soon I am just trying to learn what I can and don't make any money out of it.

Have you heard of m$ or apple dragging a private individual over the coals for using there logos or artwork for non commercial stuff like free wallpapers....

Let's just say I am not the only one here, similarly Deviant Art has whole categories dedicated to mac pc os Customization all sorts, wallpapers themes, icons you name it- hmmm ain't heard of any legal battles about it.

So I reckon you can quit taking the moral high ground and jumping in with your verbose monologues like some sort of self appointed linux cop anytime soon as in short I can do with out it.

And just for the record I will not be running around trying to chase this kid for copyright infringement or anyone else - going to the Admin -not my style.



12 years ago

This dude just steals my work and despite my contacting him he continues regardless.

Nice of you to ignore me and update without Links backs or credit.

So this is this what Linux community is about?

Don't be surprised when he decides to steal your work.



12 years ago

I'm not sure who I'm more irritated at, you or him.

On one hand, I can't imagine how slow the linux community would operate if everyone who used another piece of work (or a symbol, like -you've- used in half+ of yours; I doubt you've asked all projects permission and I'm ignoring the wallpapers with the proprietary mac logo which you CERTAINLY don't own "proprietary" rights to) asked before modifying it. People seldom respond in the first place. That's precisely what standard licenses are for, and why we have SO MANY OF THEM floating around in general use! You, though, just take GPL'd project logos, whose licenses from my understanding are mostly "viral", put it in your project, and effectively label it proprietary (your licenses listed are copyright-date-yourNameHere!). Somehow I don't believe that's legal, much less "considerate" as you are angry at this guy for; its taking the rights they've specified and then closing them for yourself because you added something to it. However, I am not a legal expert, so I do not know for sure if that's how it works (viral images). In any case -- sounds like blatant hypocrisy, does it not? Perhaps if you're going to upload content that you did not make -ENTIRELY- on your own, you shouldn't selfishly claim it wholly "for yourself" through the license (intentional or not).

On the other hand, I don't blame you a single bit for wanting to be recognized for your work (especially if its ENTIRELY yours), and it shouldn't be taken and posted without recognition that you made some/most/all effort into making it. You probably worked hard on them and I and the community in general appreciate that it was at least shared for personal use.

Consider this, though. Many/most of us prefer an -absolutely- free file (ie free speech, not free beer) that we are allowed to do whatever we wish with: full generosity and openness (especially to customization), in typical gnu/linux spirit. That in particular ignores the self-important/self-appreciating need to be notified when it's used, which is expected to be often. Answer this honestly: when were you going to say no if someone asked you permission? For that matter, considering your likely answer of "probably never", why does it matter, rationally speaking? If the aforementioned love of free (speech) things weren't the case, a huge chunk of us wouldn't be using open source / linux software -- we'd do just fine with Windows and the millions of wallpapers and freeware programs people post for it. Perhaps it's time to feel the essence of the 'free software' spirit: what is free for everyone, *no strings attached*! Maybe you should reconsider your own behavior regarding your comments about what the "linux community is about".

Basically, it winds down to this: your license was technically 'proprietary' and this guy had no right to take it from you whatsoever without permission. At the same time, I can't see you as having any right to "close the rights" on works including viral 'free' content (and even some proprietary content you lack rights to) for yourself.

Should my comments not persuade you to change your mind (and I honestly mean no offense, I'm trying to point out the irony here is all, and I do appreciate your work in any case; also note that I'm more on your 'side'),

I suggest you
1) Specify on all of your content that you want to be linked/referred back to / given credit OR
2) I -think- the creative commons license does that, so research and change the license to explicitly be what you want, without being a hypocrite or making it illegally AND
3) If this guy still keeps stealing stuff with no credit or fitting your license, get it contact with the gnome-look admins. It is a serious matter.

If something doesn't make sense or I made some glaring typo, apologies, It's about time for me to go to bed ;)



12 years ago

well, said.

It is unfortunate you have been "ripped off".

But browsing through your artwork also gave me some headaches. One example would be Ubuntu's trademark policy about their Logo. There's some of your artwork e.g. violating the official color statement.
And as far I can see, you didn't specify the Creative-Commons-License either.
About the Apple logo I don't want even start to speculate.

Again, don't get me wrong. I see your point. I am an "oldfashioned" artist myself, but what I try to say is, it's not always easy to get things all right.

Keep up the good work



12 years ago

I can agree that it's not always easy to get things right.

I don't make any money out of any of this and if approached by anybody from any of these organizations I would comply with their wishes.

I.E. if they wanted me to remove the content with any logos etc down it would come.

Other than that it seems plenty of people have an opinion on this matter and are only to willing to express it although it really does not involve them.



12 years ago

By the way this is not GPL The Wallpaper that is used in this GDM has been taken with out my permission and I am the copyright owner.



12 years ago

Ah, it just occurred to me that I potentially (not necessarily -- I honestly don't know how this possibility works) contradicted myself regarding the viral GPL licensing and the suggestion of creative commons. I'm not sure how it works: 'free license' content inside content with a different 'free license'. I -think- it works out okay if done properly, but I'm not sure of what's legal there or if I've messed up all sorts of things. However, it's worth researching for uploading content here and a lot of effort has been put into their construction.

In any case, NOW it's time for bed ;)



12 years ago

Lets get this straight - its my wallpaper created by me totally - if asked I have no problem with people using my work.

Also yes I do write and ask creators of work I incorporate... most recently Adrien Missika who did not reply yet so I have not used it.. and the creator of the plexis theme some 2 months back on behalf of a friend as I had requested a linux port of that said theme.



12 years ago

The logo with Debian is released under the following license, due to ongoing concerns about trademarks.

Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project.

Note: we would appreciate that you make the image a link to http://www.debian.org/ if you use it on a web page.



12 years ago

Copyright notices, and how to use them to best effect in protecting your work.

1. What is a copyright notice?

A piece of text which accompanies a work and expresses the rights and wishes of the owner(s).
2. Do I need a notice?

It is strongly recommended that you include one on your work, it will:
* Announce that copyright exists in the work.
* Make it clear who is the owner.
* Deter infringement.

By having a copyright notice you are helping to prevent infringement occurring.
3. Where should the notice be placed?

The rule to adopt is to ensure that anyone with access to your work is aware of the copyright. If your work can be broken up into several pieces, then the notice should appear on each part. If it would normally be viewed as a whole then one will suffice.
* If you are writing a book, you should only need one inside the front cover.
* Leaflets, commercial documents, etc. should have one on each item.
* Web pages should have one on every page.
* In the music industry, one is placed on the CD, cassette or LP itself, and one is included on any accompanying sleeve or booklet.
* Photographs and designs will have one at the bottom or on the reverse of the work
* Manuscripts: A single notice on the front will normally suffice.

Include acknowledgements for any images, excerpts etc. that you have used which are not your own, and ensure that you obtain permission before you use anyone else’s work.
4. What does a notice consist of?
1. "Copyright"

Some countries will not accept the symbol alone, they also require the word "Copyright" to appear in order to consider the notice valid. Using the word ensures that there can be no confusion.
2. "©"

The normally recognised symbol. Most countries across the world accept this as the correct manner of displaying copyright.
3. Year of publication

In case of a dispute of ownership of a work, the date plays an important part. If your work was developed and published before any potential opponents then you can usually expect to win any case which challenges your rights.

In the case of work which is continually updated, (for example a web site), the year of publication may be shown as a period from first publication until the most recent update, (i.e. 2000-2004)
4. Copyright owner’s name

This may only be one person, or it may be a collective, a band, group or team for example.

If there is one person who owns the rights to a work, then his/her name will appear on its own. If however, your work is owned by several people then you may choose to include the name of each member of the collective, or include the name of the collective itself.

This would give your copyright notice the following appearance: Copyright © 2004 Bobby Smith.
5. Title of work (optional)

You may wish to include this if you have several small works under one title. You can put either the overall title of the work or the title of the smaller work in the notice. The title is normally placed at the beginning.
6. Phonogram rights in sound recordings "phonogram copyright symbol"

Sound recordings have a right separate from the underlying musical composition, and a sound recordings should carry a phonogram copyright notice (denoted by the P in a circle) for the recording itself. The standard "©" notice should also be used, but in the case of sound recordings this is used to protect the cover design, lyric sheets or other printed material included with the sound recording.

In our example, this would give the appearance of the notice as Copyright © 2004 Bobby Smith, phonogram copyright symbol 2004 Bobby Smith.

Tip: On most computers the phonogram copyright symbol symbol can be found within the Webdings font.

The information you have read so far gives you the minimum that both the Universal Copyright Convention and the UK Copyright Service suggest you include in your copyright notice. You may also wish to increase your notice in order to clarify any further wishes you have as the copyright owner, this is dealt with in the following sections.
Extending your copyright notice
7. Why extend your notice?

In some cases you may wish to permit certain activities, in others you may wish to make it clear that you are withholding all rights, or require the user to apply for a licence to carry out certain actions. To do this you should include a statement that explicitly sets out these terms, the statement should appear as a sentence after the copyright notice.
8. Wording your statement

There are several items to think about when wording your statement. Decide in relation to your work, what you wish to permit. Be specific in your wording, make it clear what you will allow and what is prohibited.

Probably the best starting place is to think from the point of view of withholding all rights and then carefully word any allowances as exceptions, making sure it is clear that these are the only allowances you will make.

Here are some areas to consider:
1. Copying, duplication, reproduction

The right to produce a copy of the work

Do you wish certain groups to be able to copy your work? if so what terms would you attach?
2. Selling, hiring

Normally this would be expressly forbidden without the copyright holders consent.
3. Distribution

You may for example have written a shareware program which you will allow to be duplicated and distributed freely so long as you are identified as the author.
4. Commercial or personal use

Will you allow your work to be used differently by certain groups or individuals?

Educational or private study use is generally permitted under law in any case, but you may want to allow copying for private use but not for commercial gain.
5. Licenses

For software, commercial and educational documents in particular, the copyright notice may carry information about obtaining a licence to reproduce the work.

By not obtaining a licence, use of the work may be considered in breach of copyright.
6. Right to be identified as the author

If for example, the work is distributed without your control, you will wish to ensure that you are still identified as the author/copyright owner.

Note: Acts done in the course of private research or study, criticism or news reporting do not normally constitute an infringement.
9. Examples of copyright statements
* "All rights reserved"

A simple cover all statement. This is the most commonly used statement, and perhaps the clearest, and covers most eventualities. It simply means that you withhold all rights to the maximum extent allowable under law.
* "Any unauthorised broadcasting, public performance, copying or re-recording will constitute an infringement of copyright."

Another cover all statement, this one is designed for use on sound recordings, but can easily be adapted to apply to other types of work.

The wording makes it clear that the authors rights are taken very seriously. For maximum effect you can combine (a) and (b).
* "Permission granted to reproduce for personal and educational use only. Commercial copying, hiring, lending is prohibited."

For businesses and organisations this kind of statement can be of mutual benefit as allowing reproduction may help to promote their message.
* "May be used free of charge. Selling without prior written consent prohibited. Obtain permission before redistributing. In all cases this notice must remain intact."

This is the type of notice often used for software distributed as "freeware" or "shareware", by specifying that the copyright notice remains intact you ensure that all copies will identify you as the author.

Remember, copyright notices are straightforward statements, there is no need to get tied up with legal jargon, the point is to state your wishes clearly and succinctly.



12 years ago

(Quote)Lets get this straight - its my wallpaper created by me totally - if asked I have no problem with people using my work.(/Quote)

I think you've misunderstood something I said here. I was NOT simply referring to this single work stolen by the guy in question; that's not in argument at all. I explicitly referenced everything else you've made with proprietary or explicitly GPL (viral) symbols, logos, whatnot.

(Quote)Also yes I do write and ask creators of work I incorporate... most recently Adrien Missika who did not reply yet so I have not used it.. and the creator of the plexis theme some 2 months back on behalf of a friend as I had requested a linux port of that said theme.(/Quote)

Again, I'm specifically referencing all of the GPLed and proprietary logos and names you use, not the works made from individuals. Have you emailed the ubuntu project, the debian project, the linux foundation, etc asking to make a wallpaper? That's what I was saying I doubted you did, because it would be wholly unnecessary and ridiculous: the GPL tells you what you can and cannot do already.

On a side note, not considering "a giant group of people" seems to be less of an issue than a single artist, isn't that interesting? Somewhat identical to our tendency to be more affected by individual deaths than large numbers often times.

..Anyway, I am simply saying that branding all the work with such viral GPL stuff on them as "your proprietary stuff" is inherently as inconsiderate (and possibly illegal) as you are upset for with this guy, as I said before. I thought I made that pretty clear. I have no doubt you asked for permission for individual peoples' content, and never did, and never intended to suggest such.

(Quote below)By the way this is not GPL The Wallpaper that is used in this GDM has been taken with out my permission and I am the copyright owner.(/Quote)

If he doesn't respond soon, you do have every right and good reason to get in touch with the gnome-look admins and try to have something done; or go further if you find it necessary. Again, don't misunderstand the meaning of my previous post. I do fully agree that you've been pretty much stolen from here, just that you need to think a little bit more about some things you are upset about too, and consider finding an understanding of (and use) the popular licenses.

..back to bed again ;)



12 years ago

Hm, I wanted to add something else after reading a couple more messages around..

In saying "wholly your work", I am once again referring to logos/names/titles/slogans. For example, the ubuntu wallpapers you made: I'm not saying you didn't make them yourself; I'm saying you used a logo and name originally made by someone else in your work. Accordingly, it can't be interpreted by any stretch of the imagination as "wholly yours" (especially belonging to you in a proprietary sense), as the symbol/name/etc are not yours. I'm getting kind of tired of repeating that, but it doesn't seem to have clicked yet, so there you have it. Even if you drew your own version of the ubuntu logo, it still comes from ubuntu. For comparison, if you drew Microsoft's logo and proclaimed it legally yours (proprietary!) on a popular website, how many hours do you think it would last before microsoft brought the hammer down on you? How about youtube videos being taken down that have popular tv shows on them, commercial revenue not considered (it happens with non-commercial-ridden channels too)?

(Quote)...I dont make money... (/Quote)(Quote)I.E. if they wanted me to remove the content with any logos etc down it would come.(/Quote)

This gives off a defensive air, and I apologize and again note I don't think you've done anything wrong but make "proprietary" work with GPL things that I'm pretty sure doesn't legally "belong" to you (whether drawn by you or not) in them. This guy's taken your stuff, certainly a big problem.

(Quote)Other than that it seems plenty of people have an opinion on this matter and are only to willing to express it although it really does not involve them.(/Quote)

*Seemingly* passive-aggressive comment about whose "business this is" aside, that's not true. Theft of artwork on a public artwork submission site and the breaking copyright licenses involves everyone in the community, albeit indirectly most of the time. We all want to keep everything legitimate here, make no mistake, and we want the not-yet-linux-public to see us in a better light than most do now, "proprietary content thieves and copiers" (a'la all the xp/vista/7/mac ripoffs).

phew.. i hope that's all that needs to be said now, as this topic's getting pretty old.. do something already :p I'm too tired to go back and edit this one tonight for quality, so apologies for sloppiness/coherence issues or anything potentially offensive ahead of time :p



12 years ago

The Trademarks

Canonical owns a number of trademarks and these include UBUNTU, KUBUNTU, EDUBUNTU, and XUBUNTU. The trademarks are registered in both word and logo form. Any mark ending with the letters UBUNTU or BUNTU is sufficiently similar to one or more of the trademarks that permission will be needed in order to use it. This policy encompasses all marks, in word and logo form, collectively referred to as “Trademarks”.
Permitted Use

Certain usages of the Trademarks are fine and no specific permission from us is needed.

Community Advocacy. Ubuntu is built by, and largely for, its community. We share access to the Trademarks with the entire community for the purposes of discussion, development and advocacy. We recognise that most of the open source discussion and development areas are for non-commercial purposes and will allow the use of the trademarks in this context, provided:


the Trademark is used in a manner consistent with the Usage Guidelines below

there is no commercial intent behind the use

what you are referring to is in fact Ubuntu. If someone is confused into thinking that what isn't Ubuntu is in fact Ubuntu, you are probably doing something wrong

there is no suggestion (through words or appearance) that your project is approved, sponsored, or affiliated with Ubuntu or its related projects unless it actually has been approved by and is accountable to the Ubuntu Community Council

Derived works. The ability to customise Ubuntu to meet your specific needs is one of the great strengths of free software in general, and Ubuntu in particular. While we encourage customisation and derivation of Ubuntu, we must balance that freedom with the integrity of the Trademarks and the quality which they represent. To help reach that balance, we have established the following guidelines and definitions.

We recognise and encourage the concept of a “remix.” Remixes are derived versions of Ubuntu, and it is intended that any software and hardware certifications will apply to a Remix. Therefore the changes from the official Ubuntu product must be minimal to be permitted to use the Trademarks. These changes can include configuration changes through the existing Ubuntu configuration management tools, changes to artwork and graphical themes and some variance in package selection. In general, a Remix can have applications from the Ubuntu archives added, or default applications removed, but removing or changing any infrastructure components (e.g., shared libraries or desktop components) will result in changes too large for the resulting product to be called by a Trademark. Note that if the nature of the product's divergence from Ubuntu changes, the Remix naming and Trademark use may no longer apply.

Therefore, if you are creating a derivative of Ubuntu, you may use the Trademarks in association with the software product provided:


the changes are minimal and unsubstantial, as described above

there is no commercial intent associated with the new product

the Trademark is used in a way that makes it clear that your project is a development effort related to the Ubuntu source, but that the software you are working upon is not in fact Ubuntu as distributed by the Ubuntu project. The approved naming scheme to facilitate this is through designation “Remix”. For instance, a new ISO image which has been packaged special tools for software developers could be called “Ubuntu, Developers Remix”, or an image was has been created with Thai language packs could be called "Ubuntu Thai Remix". Words such as "Edition" and "Version" should be avoided, as they have specific meaning within the Ubuntu project. Prefixes, such as “ThaiBuntu” should also be avoided. Any other naming scheme will require explicit permission.

there is no suggestion (through words or appearance) that your project is approved, sponsored, or affiliated with Ubuntu or its related projects unless it has been approved by and is governed by the Ubuntu Community Council.

If you are producing a new product which is based on Ubuntu but which has more substantial changes than those described above as a Remix, you are allowed to state (and we would encourage you to do so) that your product is "derived from Ubuntu", "based on Ubuntu", or "a derivative of Ubuntu" but you may not use the Trademarks to refer to your product. In some cases you may be allowed to use the Trademarks, but we'll need to discuss that. In that event, these products will need a trademark license, and such a license can be revoked if the nature of your divergence from Ubuntu changes. Products which include very invasive changes, such as a new kernel, the inclusion of packages which are not part of the Ubuntu repositories, or anything else that significantly impacts the technical quality or user experience would fall into this category are unlikely to be approved. (Note that if you are including packages which are not part of the Ubuntu repositories, we encourage you to work within the community processes to submit and maintain those packages within the repositories in order to minimise this issue.)

Building on Ubuntu or for Ubuntu. If you are producing new software which is intended for use with or on Ubuntu, you may use the Trademark in a way which indicates the intent of your product. For example, if you are developing a system management tool for Ubuntu, acceptable project titles would be "System Management for Ubuntu" or "Ubuntu Based Systems Management". We would strongly discourage, and likely would consider to be problematic, a name such as UbuntuMan, Ubuntu Management, ManBuntu, etc. Furthermore, you may not use the Trademarks in a way which implies an endorsement where that doesn't exist, or which attempts to unfairly or confusingly capitalise on the goodwill or brand of the project.

Commentary and parody. The Ubuntu trademarks are designed to cover use of a mark to imply origin or endorsement by the project. When a user downloads something called Ubuntu, they should know it comes from the Ubuntu project. This helps Ubuntu build a reputation that will not be damaged by confusion around what is, and isn't, Ubuntu. Using the trademarks in your discussion, commentary, criticism or parody, in ways that unequivocally do not imply endorsement, is permissible. Anyone is free to write articles, create websites, blog about, or talk about Ubuntu -- as long as it's clear to everyone -- including people completely unfamiliar with Ubuntu -- that they are simply referring to Ubuntu and in no way speaking for Canonical, or the Ubuntu project.

We reserve the right to review all usage within the open source community, and to object to any usage that appears to overstep the bounds of discussion and good-faith non-commercial development. In any event, once a project has left the open source project phase or otherwise become a commercial project, this policy does not authorise any use of the Trademarks in connection to that project.
Restricted use that requires a trademark license

Permission from us is necessary to use any of the Trademarks under any circumstances other than those specifically permitted above. These include:


Any commercial use.

Use on or in relation to a software product that includes or is built on top of a product supplied by us, if there is any commercial intent associated with that product.

Use in a domain name or URL.

Use for merchandising purposes, e.g. on t-shirts and the like.

Use of a name which includes the letters BUNTU in relation to computer hardware or software.

Services relating to any of the above.

If you wish to have permission for any of the uses above or for any other use which is not specifically referred to in this policy, please contact us and we'll let you know as soon as possible if your proposed use is permissible. Note that due to the volume of mail we receive, it may take up to a week to process your request. Permission may only be granted subject to certain conditions and these may include the requirement that you enter into an agreement with us to maintain the quality of the product and/or service which you intend to supply at a prescribed level.

While there may be exceptions, it is very unlikely that we will approve Trademark use in the following cases:


Use of a Trademark in a company name.

Use of a Trademark in a domain name which has a commercial intent. The commercial intent can range from promotion of a company or product, to collecting revenue generated by advertising.

The calling of any software or product by the name UBUNTU (or another related Trademark), unless that software or product is a substantially unmodified Ubuntu product, or properly labelled as a "Remix" as described above.

Use in combination with any other marks or logos. This include use of a Trademark in a manner that creates a "combined mark," or use that integrates other wording with the Trademark in a way that the public may think of the use as a new mark (for example Club Ubuntu or UbuntuBooks, or in a way that by use of special fonts or presentation with nearby words or images conveys an impression that the two are tied in some way).

Use in combination with any product or service which is presented as being Certified or Official or formally associated with us or our products or services.

Use in a way which implies an endorsement where that doesn't exist, or which attempts to unfairly or confusingly capitalise on the goodwill or brand of the project.

Use of a Trademark in a manner that disparages Ubuntu, Canonical or its products and is not clearly third-party parody.

On or in relation to a software product which constitutes a substantially modified version of a product supplied by the Ubuntu project, that is to say with material changes to the code, or services relating to such a product.

In a title or metatag of a web page whose sole intention or result is to influence search engine rankings or result listings, rather than for discussion, development or advocacy of the Trademarks.

Logo Usage Guidelines

Our logos are presented in multiple colours and it is important that their visual integrity be maintained. It is therefore preferable that the logos only be used in their standard form but if you should feel the need to alter them in any way you should keep the following guidelines in mind. It should also be borne in mind that the more you wish to vary our logos from their standard form the smaller is the chance that we will be able to approve your proposed use.


If presented in multiple colours, the logo should only use the “official” logo colours.

You may use transparency and gradient/depth tools but should retain the “official” colours.

A monochrome version may be acceptable in certain situations, if the use requires it (e.g. desktop backgrounds).

Any scaling must retain the original proportions of the logo.



12 years ago

I think you really have said enough already and to be honest I don't know who you are or what you are trying to achieve.

So with that said maybe with any luck you can quit over analyzing this and move on.



12 years ago

I notice you are using my work in this theme it would have been nice if you had asked first or at least added a link to the paper you used.



12 years ago

Human Begins?
Human Beings?



12 years ago

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there should be "Human beings".


Be the first to comment
File (click to download) Version Description Downloads Date Filesize DL OCS-Install MD5SUM
*Needs pling-store or ocs-url to install things
0 Affiliates
updated Apr 09 2009
added Apr 08 2009
downloads 24h
mediaviews 24h 0
pageviews 24h 0
System Tags linux unix

GDM Themes

For applying GDM themes, there is this tool:

Note Ubuntu uses LightDM, so you would need to switch to GDM first to use GDM themes: