On 05/02/2008, Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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). Who could they fall foul of? Remember that the risk model is: "if I use this in a manner outside of 'all rights reserved,' will keeping to the terms of the licence be a sufficiently strong defence?" If the author released a PNG with text on it and then sues me for making a copy available under GFDL - or even a modified copy under GFDL - I find it hard to imagine a judge doing other than telling the original author not to be silly. - d. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
