Re: Copyright problem with new maelstrom licence
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 11:00:05PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> Given the wording above, it seems apparent the authors don't consider
> the artwork and sounds to be part of the source code. And it's arguable
> they are correct, looking at the GPL:
I wasn't talking in a licensing sense. But in one sense, the artwork
is part of the program if you can't just remove, if you have to replace
it. If it is part of the program, it would fall under the DFSG, which
it fails to follow.
> Presumably they don't consider modifications to the sound and artwork
> will occur by modification of the original files but by replacing them
> entirely. And it's arguable that they should be considered to just be
> data files.
But I don't find programs that won't let me edit data files essential for
the program (as distinct from, say, documentation or examples) free.
(Also there are some (Josip? Joey Hess? Sorry I can't remember who right
now) who would argue that there is no distinction - that we shouldn't
have the RFC's in Debian proper without the full right to modify
and distribute as per the DFSG.)
David Starner - email@example.com
Only a nerd would worry about wrong parentheses with
square brackets. But that's what mathematicians are.
-- Dr. Burchard, math professor at OSU