Re: source for artwork

[Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at>]

* Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> [2014-02-22 16:39:06 CET]:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 04:01:59PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> >  The "preferred form for modification" phrase comes from the GPL, and I
> > don't see redeclipse covered under the GPL?
> > 
> >  Can we please not apply GPL terms to non-GPL work, pretty please?
> 
> The reason everybody does that, is that it seems to be the only place
> where "source code" is defined.  And it is a reasonable definition, IMO,
> regardless of what license is used.  Do you have a more appropriate
> definition for non-GPL code?

 I don't deny that it sounds like a reasonable definition, but insisting
with exactly that wording is not very constructive.

 Let's take the redeclipse case again, and a "provided 'as-is'" is clear
to me, insisting on anything else than what's-there-is-there is ignoring
its license.  The appropriate definition for the code at hand is its own
license, not one that "is a reasonable definition".  License work isn't
very reasonable, most of the time. :)

 Also, we aren't even talking of "code".  See my other statement along
that lines.  I myself am not a music or graphic contributor anywhere and
don't believe I can useful define for them what they might consider
source.

 Enjoy,
Rhonda
-- 
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los      |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los    | Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los    |