Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour


Submitted on
February 14, 2005
File Size
2.1 MB


6 (who?)
FeltTip 3: Retouched by Chromakode FeltTip 3: Retouched by Chromakode
Please Note:
A new version of the FeltTip set is avaliable! [link]


Feel the love! :w00t:

Many thanks to spacejunk of Crystal for Gnome [link] for testing and advice... a lot of the ideas for this set wouldn't have happened without him. :thanks:

The download contains pngs of several sizes, and the source svgs. All of the content is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license, so you are free to modify and use it elsewhere! More info can be found at [link]

All art made using Inkscape. [link]
Add a Comment:
Bersimon May 12, 2011  Student Interface Designer
So vivacious and pretty, good job on it! :heart:
V-A-P-O-R Nov 25, 2010  Hobbyist Interface Designer
great pack...thanks !
I appreciate it is well done, even if I don't like glassy icons very much. But these are a good set, really.

Just one thing -- do you realize that, by using the Attribution-Noncommercial license, you actually are not enforcing neither attribution nor noncommerciality?

It lacks the "sharealike" part, which is what forces anyone to redistribute under the same license. As it is now, someone could pick your work, wipe off the license from it, and distribute it to someone under a BSD-like license, or merely as public domain. And then, this person would not be forced to give you credit, or could use it for commercian purposes.

Hum. Now that I think on it, I am not sure of the above. If the license states attribution and nc, does it mean that you can redistribute it under any other terms -- even if they prevent modification -- which do not conflict with these two? Or you just can ignore all the license and slap on it your own? Hum... It's dangerous legal terrain.
Hi Anarres, thank you for the very detailed and informative comment :)
From my understanding, the Attribution and NonCommercial options still apply to derivative works without the ShareAlike part. ShareAlike's purpose is to require that subsequent derivative works are always licensed under the same Creative Commons license. Here's the explanation directly off the Creative Commons FAQ ([link]):

Attribution. Permit others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and derivative works based upon it only if they give you credit. NonCommercial. Permit others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and derivative works based upon it only for noncommercial purposes. No Derivative Works. Permit others to copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based upon it. Share Alike. Permit others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.

From my read of this, derivative works made to content where the ShareAlike option is not applied are still subject to the requirements of Attribution and NonCommercial use. When I released the first FeltTip version under a Creative Commons license (FeltTip 2), I wanted to leave it's use as open as possible. Requiring ShareAlike, to me, seemed a little more restrictive of the use of my work (all I really cared about was Attribution and Noncommercial use). However, I do not have a strong reason reason not to do so, and was actually considering changing the license for ShareAlike for the upcoming release of FeltTip 4 (stay tuned! :) ). I'm not so sure requiring ShareAlike is a bad thing, though I also do not have a sufficient understanding of what would use would otherwise be denied as a result of that choice. You have a good point that a release preventing modification is possibly allowed through Attribution-Noncommercial. The moment I find that such is the case I will be sure to reconsider the licenses for my work. Legalese is no fun at all :(!

It's good to see another Creative Commons using Inkscaper, and I would love to hear what your thoughts are about this! :D
Well, legal issues are always very complex and pretty confuse, at least to me.

You are probably right in what you say. At the very minimum, the intention of the license is pretty obvious -- do whatever you say, as long as you give credit and don't charge. But I was more thinking on a possible loophole which someone might want to exploit (┐would someone really care to do such a thing? You never know...)

When discussing the GNU GPL, which you may know as the most important Free Software license, Stallman used to explain that the requirement to release any modifications of the work under the same license was necessary, because otherwise someone could take your work and make it closed. In this sense, ShareAlike (now speakin with the CC lingo) means that you are protecting the freedom of the rest of the users.

Have an example: I take your icons. Add a lot to them, create new versions (PNG and XPM ones, for instance), recolour some, etc. And then, I use them in an extremely cool program, and I release the pack (icons+program) under a new license which gives you credit, is noncommercial, but prohibits any further modification (of this specific, modified version of yours), redistribution or use in any other program than mine. The rest of the people then would lose the right to use freely your work -- they will have to hunt for the original version which may or may not be easy to find. --. Furthermore, someone would have used your work to create something that is nonfree (as in free speech).

I don't know, it's just an example. But it's because of this why I use the ShareAlike -- I not only want to pass on my creations. I too want to pass on my philosophy, my way of thinking. I did this for free and for Freedom, and I'd like people to receive it as such. At the very least (retaking the previous example), the program's author would have to make carefully precise what is my work, and what is his, and explain that, while his program cannot be copied/modified/used for any purpose, my icons can.

It's the whole idea of copyleft -- not just leaving things for the people to use, but to do it in a clever way that grants the propagation of that way of thinking and doing things.

┐Have you read the essays from Stallman on these subjects, in the GNU website? They are most interesting (if at times, a bit overly meticulous), and they have studied this subject for over than 25 years. This definition of copylefted software explains in a few lines why they use copyleft (that is, the ShareAlike restriction) instead of just letting people do whatever they want with the software.

Ironically -- and changing subject slightly --, I believe that it is the NonCommercial restriction the one that would bring more problems for your iconsets. If someone wanted to include them in -- say -- a GNU/Linux distribution, even if it was one 'noncommercial' such as Debian, they could not, because Free Software, strictly speaking, can be sold. Nor Debian, nor any program included with it could make use of your icons, because they would prohibit resellers to sell distribution CDs, or even (probably, but I'm not sure on this) prohibit those CDs to be included in magazines, books, etc., because all of them do have a commercial purpose.

Once more, I insist that I am speaking without a real knowledge of the subject. I am by no means a lawyer, but this is what I have worked out after reading a bit on these issues. I, personally use the Attribution-Sharealike license, because I think it is the one that, while ensuring that it will give me credit and mantain the design as free forever, allows the greatest degree of freedom.

But of course, this is all a matter of personal oppinion. I hope mine adds something useful. :)
Very interesting... thank you for clarifying the difference between the "free as in speech" of open source and "free as in beer." I had not considered that while Attribution-Noncommercial and Attribution-ShareAlike work in differing ways, they may both work towards more or less the same intentions: free to use, but keep it free and give credit where credit is due - they just have different concepts of free. I will seriously consider switching from By-Nc to something like By-SA for the new version of the set.

I hope to read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture [link] over the summer :)

Unfortunately, even a By-SA license seems to be unacceptable (from my knowledge) to debian's lawyers. I had this experience a while ago when the smiley theme was being put into a gaim-themes package. I explicitly allowed them to redistribute the smilies under the Artistic licence [link] which they do accept.

Thank you for the thought-provoking and informative copyright conversation :)
I had heard that the CC licenses were having troubles with the GNU and the Debian people, but didn't check it out. Probably I should, because it is an important thing, compatibility. Thanks for pointing it out.

will seriously consider switching from By-Nc to something like By-SA

By no means I meant to exert any pressure on that. Licensing is a matter of only the author's will.

Ah, Lawrence Lessig's book is very good, from the snippets I've read. I'm going to get myself a paperback version, since it has just been published in my country (yay!).
I think the next update should include some of your animated style Chromakode. But your art is awesome, even in these still emoticons~ :w00t:
Right on! Actually, that's been an idea floating in the back of my mind for a while... I was originally thinking of trying it out when inkscape got animation support (it's on the roadmap), though that's definitely far in the future. Animating them smoothly in the short term using Blender has both advantages and disadvantages. Thanks! :D We'll see, when it's time for the next release ;)
I'll have to update my site with these new SMILEYs in my Blog box and such. Thanks for making them!

Add a Comment: