"Thomas Preud'homme" <robotux@celest.fr> writes:
> [Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to the list.]
Done.
> Most images don't really have a source (they were done directly as png
> as far as I understand). However, a few themes comes from icon packs
> under GPL license whose icons have a SVG source.
By the definition in the GPL (in GPLv3 §1, “the preferred form of the
work for making modifications to it”), every work of software has a
source form. So digital images are no exception.
If the preferred form of a software work is the same as the one used
directly by programs for displaying the image, then that doesn't change
the fact that it's the source form of the work.
> From there, I have a few questions:
>
> * Should I include the SVG source in the package for the images he
> didn't modify?
Whether he actually did modify them, a judgement needs to be made: for
the software work that actually ends up in the binary package, what is
the preferred form of that software (in this case, a graphic image file)
for making modifications to it?
If that's the SVG file, that's the source; if that's the PNG file,
that's the source.
> * What about the image he modified?
The source you need to include is the corresponding source form of the
software. That is, the form of the software which a recipient can use to
have exactly the same software, and make further modifications.
That doesn't change simply because this work of software happens to be
used as a graphic image.
> => My opinion is that since he based is work on the png, only the png
> need to be provided but I prefer to be safe than sorry, hence this
> question.
I'm not clear on what software you have. But if you think of it in terms
of “what is the source form of this software?” by the GPL definition,
that would be informative, I think.
> * Some of the files with a SVG source come from KDE icon theme already
> packaged in the archive. Can I just add a comment in debian/copyright
> to say the SVG are in package X or do I have to copy the SVG in my own
> package?
Each package in Debian must have the full source for that package in
Debian.
By “come from”, do you mean the exact corresponding source is already in
another package? That would make it likely the “object form” (in GPL
terminology) is also the same as that other software. Does your package
declare a dependnecy on that other package?
If by “come from” you mean “derived from” in the copyright sense of a
creative transformation, then the original is no longer the
corresponding source. You would need to include the corresponding source
for this modified form, so a recipient has that source form if they want
to make further modifications.
> => Since Debian distribute the source for both package X (the KDE icon
> theme) and my package, I'd say the image are correctly acompanied with
> the source (both are in Debian archive) as per GPL-2 3.a) or GPL-3 6.d
> ("If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the
> Corresponding Source may be on a different server").
Only if it truly is the corresponding source form of *this particular*
software, including all modifications. If there are modifications from
the other package, then that package's source is no longer the
corresponding source form for this software.
> Thanks for taking the time to read thus far. I'm waiting your answer
> to enlighten me as to what I should do to respect all the license and
> DFSG requirements.
Thank you for taking the time to treat this issue seriously.
--
\ “I must say that I find television very educational. The minute |
`\ somebody turns it on, I go to the library and read a book.” |
_o__) —Groucho Marx |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Attachment:
pgpucmKHvya7m.pgp
Description: PGP signature