Take the 2-minute tour ×
Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Since there isn't yet a Q&A site for legal issues and since this is related to an Android app, I'm posting it here, instead of Stack Overflow cause this is not code related.

I want to separate this question into 3 sub-questions which are all related though. These questions are about the Free, Commercial and Extended licenses of DryIcons.

1) Generally speaking, would I be in violation of the free license if I used some icons in my paid version of an Android app? I'm a bit confused... The free license has the following in the "Grant of Rights" section:

b. You may use the Licensed Material in any personal or commercial project unlimited number of times according to the DryIcons Free License Terms and Conditions;

From this I take that yes, I can use their icons in my paid Android app. But then I read this in the commercial license under "Restrictions":

e. Licensee may not use Licensed Material in electronic items for resale, such as website templates, electronic devices (i.e. computer, iPhone, phones, etc.) software applications, document templates, wallpapers, screensavers, e-cards or similar products that Licensee intend to sell or distribute;

Which one assumes the extended license is the one we need for a paid app. But isn't this a little bit contradictory? Doesn't that point in the free license allows me to simply use their work in paid apps?

2) Now, let's assume I really need to buy a commercial/extended license to use their work on my paid/commercial Android app, something I'll be in fact selling to an unlimited number of users.

Would I fall under the commercial/extended or the free license if I used In-app Billing in my Android app? With In-app billing I wouldn't be selling their work at all. My app would be free with a bunch of features and I would be also using their work. But since my app is free I'm also free to use their work as long as I give proper credits with a link to their website as they state in the free license (no problem doing that, I'm all for it). Then, with In-app Billing I would actually be selling extra features to my app (by providing an upgrade to a "Pro" version), not their work.

Do you think I would be in violation of the free license like this?

3) And now a similar situation as the previous point. What if, instead of In-app Billing, I would have 2 apps. One completely free using their work as the free license allows me. And another which is nothing more than an "unlock app", something that would unlock extra features on the free app. The "unlock app" is the real paid app and this app does not use their work at all.

Do you think this is exactly the same situation as in the previous point and that I'm just playing with semantics? What's your opinion on that?

Do you think I would be in violation of the free license like this?

share|improve this question
1  
About 1, as a comment because I don't think this warrants an answer. The part you need to worry about isn't what you have boldfaced, but rather the "according to the ... Terms and Conditions". That's inclusion by reference. –  Michael Kjörling Oct 19 '11 at 11:54
    
What does that mean exactly? –  Ricardo Amaral Oct 19 '11 at 13:01
    
I think @JanHudec's answer covers that pretty well. –  Michael Kjörling Oct 19 '11 at 14:15

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

The exact quote from free licence is that

You may use the Licensed Material in any personal or commercial project unlimited number of times according to the DryIcons Free License Terms and Conditions

so you look back to the section titled "Terms and Conditions" and it says:

You may use the Licensed Material in a publicly accessible web site, web application or any form of presentation publicly accessible through the World Wide Web [...]

so it does not apply to application you put on android market.

The commercial also explicitly states what it does apply to and software is not in that, so the commercial does not apply either.

The extended explicitly says:

Permitted Uses include the following:

  • Electronic devices (i.e. computer, iPhone, phones, etc.) software applications

so you need to obtain extended license.

share|improve this answer
    
You sare saying that even if I wanted to simply release an app for free I would have to pay for the extended license? –  Ricardo Amaral Oct 19 '11 at 13:03
    
@Nazgulled: Yes. When the license says "you may use the Licensed Material in ...", it implicitly means that you may not use it for anything else. And it only includes web sites. –  Jan Hudec Oct 19 '11 at 14:22
    
I contacted them about that issue and they said I could use them for free in my Android app. As long as the app remains free of course and that I add a link to their page in the about screen. –  Ricardo Amaral Oct 19 '11 at 17:26

IANAL, but ...

From what you say it appears the free license can be used as long as the project is not commercially distributed (e.g. website for your own business is allowed, but website for someone else's business is not allowed).

Regarding your third question, if their license says "project", they mean "project", not "application". So if you have two apps, one free and one paid, then those would both form a commercial project.

You should consider paying for the extended license anyway, regardless of whether you need it or not, just to show the appreciation for the icon set.

share|improve this answer
    
If you read the free license, it only applies to web sites in the first place. So no applications. –  Jan Hudec Oct 19 '11 at 12:19
    
The extended license is way over priced, I can't afford that. And I don't believe my app is good enough to make the amount of money required for such a license. –  Ricardo Amaral Oct 19 '11 at 13:05
    
If you feel it is too expensive to properly license other peoples' work for your intended use, then the obvious alternative is to make your own alternative, or find some alternative that you feel is more affordable. –  Michael Kjörling Oct 19 '11 at 14:16
1  
Please don't put it that way, it looks like I don't appreciate the work done and don't want to pay, which is not the case. I just think it's over priced like I think top of the line smartphones are over priced or Mac products are over priced. You get my point... –  Ricardo Amaral Oct 19 '11 at 14:24

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.