On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:38:34PM +0200, Mark Weyer wrote: > > * Does distributing wesnoth-music without source code comply with its > > license (GPL 2+)? > > No. The copyright holders can distribute their own work in any way they like,
No discussion here... > but anybody else breaches the GPL 2 or 3 by not offering source code. ... but I tend to disagree at this point. Despite the possibility of considering these file types as source code for the relevant purposes under the circumstances, I am not sure we can talk about license violation from a legal standpoint if the infringed requirement is that of redistribution of something the redistributor never received (and, in this case, something even the copyright holder could not provide, because it does not exist). This should, at the very least, constitute grounds for exemption of liability. Perhaps we would all be playing safer if upstream relicensed the affected files accordingly, but I do not think that should be given much importance. As for a possible DFSG violation, assuming from the considerations above that the right to redistribute is not impaired, the last (and obviously not least) remaining issue would be the requirement that "[t]he program must include source code". In this context, I think such requirement is widely open to interpretation, and I tend to think that considering wesnoth-music non-free would be counter-productive and inconsistent with the principles outlined in the Social Contract and with the remainder of the DFSG. That, however, is merely a personal opinion, of which I am actually not quite convinced. I look forward to hearing other people's comments on the issue. -- Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore gpast...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120416005859.ga1...@pastore.eng.br