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? If you do, it might also be a more appropriate one for GPL code, by the way. After all, we're not testing license compliance, but compliance to our own free software guidelines, which are not the GPL either. > [1] When people complained about the non-free license of the Debian > swirl, nobody did anything to get all the swirl graphics that live in > packages in main removed from the archive. Why should be we more > strict on stuff that isn't even ours. Good point. However, for large amounts of artwork it is IMO different than for a single icon. The difference is mostly in how reasonable it is that people will want to edit the work. Thanks, Bas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature