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

Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:32:48 +0100 Gerfried Fuchs wrote:

> * Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> [2006-01-18 11:01]:
> > There are currently two proposals in discussion on debian-vote
> > regarding a position statement on the GNU Free Documentation
> > License. The texts are available at
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001, and discussion can be
> > found by following:
>  Along the same lines of "(3) Why does documentation need to be Free
> Software?" I want to ask if not other media like images or music has
> to meet the same rules? (though with different reasoning, but same
> impact)

I think every work of authorship needs to be Free Software (at least to
be suitable for Debian main). 

>  I can understand that the "source" for those things might be tricky,

Not so much.
The "preferred form for modification" definition of source code found in
the GPL is flexible enough to be applied to these cases as well.

> but often images are flattened photoshop files or (with non-free
> tools) rendered graphics, or music converted midi files.

See? It's not so difficult...

>  As an example I want to question if I would have to move xblast* to
> contrib, because the graphics are rendered with povray, or if there is
> no need for it? There are for sure other graphics that fall under the
> same thing; at least I can say for xblast that I'm in the good
> position to have the povray source available with which the images
> were rendered. But would producing them on build-time really raise the
> quality, moving xblast* to contrib? If this is done then please think
> of other packages with the same "problem", too.

I think it should be moved to contrib and graphics should be rerendered
from its actual source at build time.
Consider this: if I wanted to fork xblast by modifying the graphics, I
would need the povray source (and the povray program, which is
unfortunately non-free).
Every attempt to change (for example) the camera positioning would from
hard to nearly impossible without povray source files. Hence, the
preferred form for making modification to xblast graphics is the
corresponding povray files (unless they are on their turn automatically
generated from something else...). 

>  There is one last point that I really want to raise, though: I guess
>  we
> won't have to discuss that our very own beloved swirl logo has a
> non-free licence. If we are really going to kick out GFDL
> documentation we have to be at least as fair as kicking out our logo
> from the archive, too. Otherwise we will just be laughed at, and not
> fulfilling our own DFSG, where we won't accept a Debian specific
> licence in main.

Our beloved Debian logos are non-free.
The issue is being worked on (at least I hope it's still: very little
news has come to my ears recently...).
This is one of my pet issues and it's one of the most difficult: it
involves both copyright and trademark considerations...

>  Please, think about it. Seriously. Don't let this turn into the next
> flamewar. If there had been past discussions on either of those
> topics, send me along links so I can read up on the reasonings for
> either discussion back then to understand it better.

There were, but now I haven't enough time to dig the archives...

    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp3a62CXizQo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: