[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, May 06, 2004 at 03:01:29AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Michael Banck wrote:
> > In contrast, having the possibilty to modify $APPLICATION's stock
> > 'File->Open' icon in its native form, i.e. gimp layers or whatever seems
> > to be of less importance by several orders of magnitude, as long as we
> > can *somehow* fix it by e.g. replacing it with another one, or fixing it
> > by gimping it up or so. I mean, very few of us are graphic designers or
> > so.
> Well, I suppose the graphic designers among Debian should comment.  :-)

How many are there? How often do you have to modify graphics when
packaging stuff?
> > Same goes with fonts.
> Likewise.

You'd find even less people who'd design fonts. And I don't know how
many would just modify a given font or rather create a new one from

> > Even less so with "You've got mail" sounds or
> > so, what's the use in having the Cubase samples for that or something?
> > We could still edit the waveform somehow, even if that would be a bit
> > more tedious
> Ow.  A lot more tedious.

Sure. But how often do you have to modify sounds when packaging stuff?
Compared to modifying Makefiles or C source code?

I agree that programs shipping sounds for the sake of *creating* music
(like samples for a tracker) should be capital F free so that people
making music can use them in a useful way. But I don't believe the same
holds for a 'You've got mail' sound from e.g. Evolution.

Perhaps the crucial part is to look whether the file in question can be
reasonably/typically used to create new art/software as opposed to just
accompain a bigger package. Source code is fundamentally different,
because that's in the scope of our core business.


Michael Banck
Debian Developer

Reply to: