[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Free Art License

* Ingo Ruhnke <grumbel@gmail.com> [12/09/04, 23:36:06]:

> 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?

I'm not sure if I mentioned that before, but that'd be like requiring
not only not-obfuscated code, but well commented code, as I'd for sure
prefer that to uncommented code, and it's way easier even for the author
to remember what the code does. Now let's have a look at OSS reality.
Most code is documented like crap, the Linux kernel uses a lot of code
that could've been written in a way that'd be easier to understand...
and still this is considered source in the context of the GPL. The way I
understand it, "preferred form of making modifications" does not equal
the "ideal form of making modifications".

Just my EUR 0.02


Kai Blin aka. nowhere (blin<at>gmx.net), WorldForge Project
Web: http://www.worldforge.org/

Let a fool hold his tongue and he will pass for a sage.
		-- Publilius Syrus

Attachment: pgpB8yGodf8S5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: