On Fri, 26 May 2006 07:43:58 -0400 Andrew Moise wrote: > On Sun, 21 May 2006 00:43:11 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > I don't agree. > > The GPL is *not* a bad license for images: forcing source > > distribution is a feature, not a bug. > > I was unclear: It's a bad license for images because it seems to be > extremely rare, for some reason, for people to keep the source for > images around. For most of the people I asked about licensing terms, > I asked first if they were okay with providing the source and > licensing the image under the GPL. Every single person either said > that they didn't have the source anymore,
There's a misconception here.
The source code for a work is defined (in GPLv2, section 3) as
"the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".
If the author discards a form of his/her work, this form is apparently
*not* the one he/she would prefer for making modifications.
As a consequence, that form is, by definition, *not* source.
> or explicitly that I
> couldn't have the source.
This is a different story: if the author refuses to provide source, the
work does not comply with the DFSG, regardless of the license (as it
fails at least DFSG#2).
>
> > I'm not against non-copyleft licenses, but providing source has to
> > be done anyway in order to call a work DFSG-free. Hence Debian
> > should provide source even if the images were under a MIT license.
>
> Huh. If DFSG #2 is going to be applied to images,
I believe it must be applied to every work in main (and in contrib), in
order to not violate SC#1.
> then I guess
> blackbox-themes should be moved to non-free.
As I stated, it depends.
Maybe source is made available for some of them.
Upstream authors should be asked to clarify which form they prefer for
making modifications, whenever it's not apparent.
If we already have such a form, all is well.
If we don't, then upstream should be persuaded to provide it.
Only when the latter fails, the work must be moved out of main (and/or
contrib).
> That would actually be a
> useful option, since it would allow the inclusion of themes where the
> author was okay with allowing use within Debian, but not
> redistribution (IIRC there was at least one of those in the 0.2
> package).
Having a package moved from main to non-free would not a be a win for
anyone, I would say.
So I hope we can obtain the missing sources (if any) and keep
blackbox-themes in main.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpdV1Dn6Fyfo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
