I have an open source software project under the 3-Clause BSD license, which includes a logo in its README. Recently, working on another project, I have found that the license text does not explicitly include the license under which the logo is covered. In this case, would the logo be covered under the BSD-3 license? Do I have to explicitly declare the logo license? Do I declare it in another file or in the same LICENSE? Modifying the license, if I need to, would that be a bad practice? Are there versions of the most popular open source licenses that include a mention of the project's graphic assets? Clarify that I do not want to create a trademark for the logo because I do not care whether it is used as it is, I want it to be under the same license or a compatible one.

Sorry for the barrage of questions, but I have a lot of doubts at this point about the use of graphic assets in open source licenses.

  • The general principle is that if the copyright holder has not granted you a license on any particular piece of content, then you don't have any rights to copy that piece. – Nate Eldredge Mar 5 at 20:54
  • So, you should always include another different LICENSE for the graphic assets? – Álvaro Mondéjar Mar 6 at 9:31
  • I'm confused - are you the copyright holder of the logo, or not? If yes, you can license it any way you choose. And if you want it covered by the same license as the code, then I don't see why you wouldn't just clarify in the existing LICENSE file that the logo is included. If you're not the copyright holder, then obviously you have to comply with whatever license has been granted to you. – Nate Eldredge Mar 6 at 16:39
  • The law wouldn't treat the graphics and the code differently in any way that I know of; they're all just "works", and can be licensed together or separately. I don't quite understand why you seem to think there would be anything special about graphic assets. – Nate Eldredge Mar 6 at 16:40
  • If you read carefully the 3-Clause BSD license text, you will see that textually refers to the software itself, but the MIT, for example, textually includes the documentation files: "this software and associated documentation files (the "Software")". Why MIT specifies that and 3-BSD not? It's very confusing. – Álvaro Mondéjar Mar 7 at 12:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.