On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:07:22AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Craig Small wrote: > > FWIW, I think the concept of a graphic needing its source is also bogus. > > It means that the upstream have to hang onto some script they might of > > used once years ago for.. what reason? > > To give you a concrete example, I made the SPI logo (and I think it is > > the current one, it looks like it) using gimp and some sort of lisp script. > > I don't have that script anymore, does that make the logo non-free? > > Should that change the status of the graphic? > > If, instead of a script I manually typed/moused the commands, does that > > change the status? > You are conflating two issues: > What is the "source" as required by DFSG item 2. Under the scenario > you have described, the PNG of the SPI logo appears to be "source" > since if you/upstream were to modify the SPI logo you/upstream would > use the PNG since the XCF and Lisp script no longer exist. A PNG is not a program. There is no source required for a PNG under DFSG #2, and anyone who says otherwise is engaging in (or a victim of) historical revisionism. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature