Re: Free Art License
> For the first: if it's the form that would be used if the author wanted
> to modify the image further, yes.
How about stuff that is 'one-way', ie. not modifiable at all in a
usefull way with todays given file formats (.xcf). Say something like
a graphical image of a button that is basically text + a few filters
to add a 3d effect and such. If I want to change the actually text on
the image in a meaningfull way, so that it fits together with other
buttons that ues the same style, I need to know the filters and
parameters that where used in the process, however often that is
something that not even the orignal author might remember after a few
days. Won't the resulting work be undistributable under GPL due to the
lack of source? Does the author need to manually write the process to
create the effects down to a text file to allow meaningfull
modification of the work at a later point since todays free software
won't handle that situation to fullfill the GPL?
> (There's been a repeated conversation wrt. source distribution and the
> DFSG: what should Debian require for things like images, fonts and
> movie clips? There isn't a strong consensus, yet.)
Why does Debian than distribute that stuff at all? Isn't the normal
policy to play safe and not distribute stuff unless it is clear what
is meant by the license?
Reply to: