Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portal-puzzle.svg
David Göthberg has tagged this image with {{No license}} with the following argument:
This image is a derivative work of File:Portal icon.svg / File:Portal.svg
. Its obvious from looking at it, and the uploader states so himself at w:Template talk:Portal#Remove link from image, for accessibility. Problem is that File:Portal.svg uses the GFDL license (and some other similar licenses), so this image should also have such a license. Thus this image may not be released as public domain. And this image fails to attribute User:Pepetps who made File:Portal.svg.
Eubulides (the author) objects that
This image was created as a replacement for File:Portal icon.svg. However, it is not a derivative work, as it was created entirely from scratch. The only elements that it shares with File:Portal icon.svg (horizontal blue puzzle piece with keyhole) are so simple that they are not protectible by copyright. Whatever minor creative features that are copyrightable in File:Portal icon.svg are done quite differently in this version.
(See the file talk page for details.)
I would say 
keep; indeed there is no element from the original image, only the concept is the same and concepts are not copyrightable. –Tryphon☂ 08:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Image has a proper license notice using {{PD-self}}, and was created from scratch by the uploader. The assertion that it is a copyright infringement relies on the incorrect assumption that one can use copyright law to prevent anyone else from publishing a blue puzzle piece with a keyhole. Please see File talk:Portal-puzzle.svg for details. Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep clearly not a derivative work. Inspired at best. Why even waste energy on fighting this when the intentions seem to be good (accessibility impreovement, new contribution with more liberal licensing)? --Dschwen (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No matter what, there is a valid license; PD-self means we can distribute it under the GFDL. The argument over whether we should or need to is not one to be resolved by deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
