Re: GPL on rendered images

[Ingo Ruhnke <grumbel@gmx.de>]

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

>> a) declare that the images as they are are 'enough' to be considered
>>    'prefered form of modification' and leave it as it is
>
> If the 3d models were available, I imagine they'd be the preferred form
> for modification.
>
> Since they're not available, through neglect, I don't see that they're
> preferred.

So deleting the source makes it ok to distribute binary-only?

>> b) consider it a violation of the GPL and no longer distribute it
>
> If someone had the 3d models and they considered the sprites to be
> derived works based on those models, then we'd have to go for option b).
>
> But you seem to be saying that this isn't the case.

Well, so far I don't know a single case where a game released under
the GPL that was rejected from Debian, however almost none of them
comes with 'source' for the images that are used in them. So I am just
not sure how Debian handles such situations in general or if it tries
to handle them at all.

-- 
WWW:      http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/ 
JabberID: grumbel@jabber.org 
ICQ:      59461927