On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:00:52AM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote: > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes: > > > The GPL merely makes it obvious that your problem is hard. "Don't do > > that, then" is not a reasonable answer to the problem of making your > > images free. It's not free unless other people can modify it to suit > > their purposes. Every example you can possibly give of this form, if > > valid, falls into this class. > > > Any license which dodges such problems is merely *giving up*. It's > > not making the image reliably free. > > Well, yes its in part dodging, but only because I don't see that there > will be any reasonable way to have a clear definition of source for > images or media in general in the near or even far future. And even if > one had one it would often be highly impractical to distribute it (ie. > gigabytes of uncompressed videos). In essence you're saying that "It's impractical to make this free". Whether true or not, that's *all* you're saying. It's got nothing to do with the GPL. Word games about 'source' are irrelevant. Things which pretend to be free but aren't are just PR crap. Don't expect us to be fooled by it; they aren't free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature