-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Benedikt Ahrens ha scritto: > Thanks for your reply. > So i understand that the support for non-free plugins is considered a > no-do, but the inclusion of non-free artwork is considered ok.
Plugins are software, artwork is not software. > I cite from [2]: > " Non-functional Data [cut] You are mixing things. When FSF created the guidelines for free distributions it pointed to an higher goal (even the artwork should be licensed under a libre license). It would be better to do so but artwork is not an essental part of the software and if the artwork can be easily replaced then the software can be considered free. > Does Mozilla allow the copying and distribution of the icon? I suppose > yes, since Ubuntu and others do this without intervention of Mozilla. Please read here: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/faq.html \\\\\\\\\\\\\ Isn't having the logo files under a different license incompatible with the GPL? First off, the Mozilla Foundation binaries are distributed under MPL terms, so this question doesn't arise in practice. But, even if it did, we don't believe it's incompatible with the GPL anyway. We are following the interpretation that the logo files are not part of the program itself (e.g., the Firefox browser), they are simply data used by that program, and changing the logo data has absolutely no effect on the functional use of the program. We therefore believe that licensing of the logo files themselves is outside the scope of any GPL terms that might be applied to other Mozilla source files (i.e., under the Mozilla tri-license). This position is consistent with comments on the FSF web site regarding GPL compatibility of a particular font license; see the entry in the FSF's GPL-incompatible license list regarding the Arphic Public License. However in the GPL FAQ the FSF does not address this issue explicitly. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ > If so, it is somewhat misleading to call the icon non-free, since it > can be part of a free operating system - even though it may not be > modified. > > Since freeness for software and arts seem to be different things, > might one want to have different terminology also? > Mixing things, read above. > After what you said, Graziano, it seems like Thunderbird is free > software only after removing the icon. This seems to contradict the > citation above (assumed the permission to distribute the unmodified > logo). software is not artwork. - -- Graziano Sorbaioli ~ sorbaioli.org Libre Planet Italia -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJyMnvTtn97LA90HMRAtUSAJ9xB2nR1K022aY9A6y3lnCnN4TLbACeOGRV xZVQSLEiqvK6E8mNi0Gdc1w= =dX7J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
