On 9/3/06, Bernhard Dippold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In my eyes it's the licensing problem mentioned at the issues he filed
WRT his work:
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=62405 to 62408.
Parts of his additions are not "open" in the full sense of our
licensing: They are not allowed to be modified. If others are licensed
under GPL I don't really remember.
Just a few comments:
- Art, clip or otherwise, is -not- program code. Huckleberry Finn is
in the Public Domain and still I think most would argue that
"improving" on it would be foolish. I've had this discussion with
different artists and they seem to agree that giving away art is OK,
as long as it isn't modified. Even for commercial usage. They find
attribution and integrity much more important. Trying to make art FOSS
(last letter is source after all) is like trying to force a round peg
into a square hole ..
Q: What's the impact of FOSS projects in art heavy computer games?
What's the impact in art light kernels?
A: Only game engines that contain no art are FOSS. You all know the
answer for kernels... ;-)
- It's very common to license different parts of a work under
different licenses. Nothing stops us from licensing the code under
LGPL and the clip art under some other license (CreativeCommons,
PD/nochange, specific).
The next action is to figure out how to integrate the changes Kami
made into the main tree. He is obviously doing something that is
widely requested, as Daniel already clearly pointed out.
btw. I think Chad is on the right track with the FOSS thing. Treating
forks well, be they small or big, is the sign of a wise project.
--
Kai Backman, Software Engineer, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
