Re: First Draft proposal for modification of Debian Free Software Guidelines:
Michael Banck <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.
Yes, but not because of a lack of source. It's allegedly non-free
because of the usage restrictions. (I am not sure that this really
makes it non-free, incidentally, but I'm not interested in arguing the