On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 02:52:39AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:17:41PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > For images, fonts, and sounds, he makes an exception for the source > > code requirement. For many of these, there is no sensible source code > > anyway, and so DFSG 2 doesn't require it. That is, the image is > > itself the source code. > That's a statement I would like to know whether it is accepted by all > the other developers? I think I agree (without having thought this > through a lot), but I was not aware that this was the standard way of > interpreting things, certainly not after the recent dicussions. > For example, people say that our logo was non-free. It's non-free due to restrictions on use, distribution, and modification, not due to a lack of source. There is certainly a current of opinion among developers that separate source forms are less meaningful for images than for programs, though it's also not universally accepted. There are quite a few modifications one can usefully make to a bitmapped image, compared to relatively few changes you can make to a binary executable. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature