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, or explicitly that I couldn't have the source. > 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, then I guess blackbox-themes should be moved to non-free. 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). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
