Hopefully it is just a misunderstanding. However, if GIMP really is non-libre, we should file a bug report or send an email to some GNU list, as part of the GNU project, if we have libre issues with it, so does GNU.
~ Luke Shumaker At Sat, 05 May 2012 13:39:25 +0200, Michał Masłowski wrote: > [1 <multipart/signed (7bit)>] > [1.1 <text/plain (7bit)>] > > Hi guys, yesterday gimp 2.8 was released and include a splash screen > > that doesn't respect our freedom > > http://www.gimpusers.com/news/00420-gimp-2-8-finally-released > > > > "This work by Richard Hirner is licensed under the > > Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported terms." > > I know these other facts: > > - http://www.gimpusers.com/news/00419-gsoc-2012-gimp-gegl-projects has a > similar caption > > - the LICENSE file in gimp-2.8.0 source states this: > > * The GIMP application core, and other portions of the official GIMP > distribution not explicitly licensed otherwise, are licensed under > the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE -- see the 'COPYING' file in this > directory for details. > > - the data/images/gimp-splash.png file has no license-related metadata > and no other file in obvious place like that directory states any > copying information > > - you haven't posted any reference to the GIMP source here. > > I believe this caption is incorrect or refers to the review instead of > to the image. So it's not a problem in the GIMP or Parabola. > [1.2 <application/pgp-signature (7bit)>] > > [2 <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>] > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
