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

Re: First Draft proposal for modification of Debian Free Software Guidelines:

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

Reply to: