On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:20:02 +0100 Thomas Harding wrote:
[...]
> * To upload a "background source package", is it mandatory to use
> an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for photographies, or a
> high-res jpeg format, which is now commonly used by digital
> cameras and well-handled by GIMP, is enough? Both formats are
> suitable for transformations, but the last one induces
> non-lossless compression.
IMO, it is mandatory to include source code.
The best definition of source I am aware of is the one found in the GNU
GPL text: basically, the preferred form for making modifications to the
work.
Which is the preferred form?
It depends on the work being considered: you have to ask yourself
"which is the form I would use to make modifications to the work?"
Hint: if you are keeping some form for future modifications, but you
are distributing something else as "source", maybe you're not providing
the actual source...
> * the "Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-SA) v3.0" license
> typed in http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses have no URL given.
> So, is it that one:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
I personally recommend against CC licenses, because I think they do not
meet the DFSG: see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00076.html
and the URLs listed there, for further details.
However, this is my own opinion and that
many other people (including FTP-masters, it seems!) disagree with me...
> * Are cropped and touched-up files "source files"? (see below
> lines starting #95)
As always, if they are the preferred form for making further
modifications, then yes, they are source code.
On the other hand, if you would restart from some prior form in order
to make modifications, then no, they are not source.
[...]
> On 24/Dec - 11:16, Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
> > I don't mean to discourage you, but I don't think the GNU GPLv3 is an
> > appropriate license for high-resolution photos. The reason is the
> > 'source code' or 'preferred form for modification' requirement - most
> > folks won't want to have to share both the extra high and low
> > resolution versions and so will just violate your license. I'm not
> > sure what license is appropriate, but public domain is how many people
> > treat online images, or the Creative Commons licenses seem to get more
> > respect of their terms for images.
So guaranteeing that people can get source is a bug, rather than a
feature?
I cannot agree with you here...
I am convinced that the GNU GPL is suitable for many kinds of works
(not only executable programs), and that making source available is an
essential part of distributing Free Works.
[...]
> Well: a common format I use is "jpeg", but I expect some guys would prefer
> the "tiff" format, which is lossless, but means about 30MB each photo. I
> worry the huge amount of disk-space it will consume on a Debian repository.
You are worried that the preferred form could be huge.
If its size is a serious practical inconvenience, maybe that form is
not really the preferred one...
N.B.: All the above consists of my own opinions.
IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP, as usual.
--
On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND
"nano-documents" may lead you to my website...
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgplOZ_vJlrEh.pgp
Description: PGP signature