On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 11:17 +0000, David Gerard wrote: > In practical use on Wikimedia sites, it's generally been taken to mean > that whatever the reuser receives under GFDL is the transparent copy - > e.g., even if the author made a picture in Inkscape, if he releases a > rendered PNG under GFDL then that's the thing that's released under > GFDL.
The question of transparency is more objective than that; the file format has to be readily amenable to editing. E.g., a PNG with a lot of text is not transparent, even if that's what the author released. If the original release from the author is not transparent, I think subsequent distributors could fall foul of the opaqueness rules, and would be unable to distribute according to the license. I wouldn't see that as being any different to releasing a binary under the GPL; just because that's what was released doesn't make it "the source" (the requirements in the two cases are very different, though, so maybe not directly comparable). Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
