Re: GPL on rendered images
Raul Miller <email@example.com> 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
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.