Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:58:02 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> A logo is not a software. A logo displayed into a software does not
> change the nature of the work, as free software.
This point of view matches the policy of most non-Debian distributions
(for example Arch and Fedora), and I personally agree that the requirements
we put on executable code do not all make sense for non-executable data -
but my personal opinions do not set Debian's policy (except to the extent
that I get one vote in each general resolution).
Debian's policy is that the term "software" is applied equally to
executable code and to non-executable data, and the archive administrators
(ftp team) will reject packages that contain copyrightable works under a
non-DFSG license, whether they are executable code or not.
This is a self-imposed restriction, not a consequence of copyright law.
Debian has chosen to have the policy that everything in main is Free
Software - whether executable or not - and that means that anything that
is not Free Software cannot be in main. It can be in non-free if it's
legally distributable, but non-free is officially not part of Debian.
Copyright law only tells us what we can and can't legally distribute:
in Debian terms, that's the dividing line between "could be included in
non-free" and "can't be included in non-free". There are plenty of things
that are allowed by copyright law, but we choose not to do because our
self-imposed policy says we will not.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with this policy or not, and it doesn't
matter whether *I* agree with this policy either: the only opinions that
matter for inclusion in Debian or exclusion from Debian are the collective
opinion of the project as a whole (as expressed in General Resolutions and
the project's constitution), and the interpretation of those policies by
the archive administrators (ftp team).
No amount of trying to convince me will change this, because I do not have
the authority to change it.
smcv
Reply to: