On Nov 9, 2007, at 9:07 PM, Igor2 wrote: > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, John Doty wrote: > >> >> On Nov 9, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Ales Hvezda wrote: >> >>> [snip] >>>> I'm making up a patch to install Tomaz's mimetype icons, and don't >>>> know >>>> where best to put it. >>> >>> Are these the icons which are licensed under a GPL-incompatible >>> license? >>> What's the status of that? >> >> Isn't GPL a strange and ambiguous license for something that isn't >> software? > > As long as you can define what does source mean for the given work, I > don't think it's strange. > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl- > faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware
Sure, you can do that. You can also (as in a comic strip a few decades ago) define a potted plant to be an automobile and sell it as such. But that doesn't turn it into an automobile. As an IP producer and consumer, I cannot understand what a license full of technical requirements for programs, linking, object code, system tools, etc. could mean when applied to something that isn't code. It isn't enough to say "you can do this". What are the consequences? Are you really sure you know? The CC licenses are far clearer. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
