Follow-up Comment #3, task #10974 (project administration): -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
2011-03-08 in GNU Savannah task #10974: "Submission of Slipstream". > Regarding the media files themselves. They are distributed in source > form in a way. The reason why I doubt they'll be useful to anyone is > that they have been converted to a format very specific to Techne > which is actually a string in Lua with all the binary data of the > image or geometry model. "in a way" is misleading. Either they're in source code form or they're not. "Binary data" encoded as a Lua string is clearly not the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. > It would be theoretically easy for anyone to convert it back but I > suppose the way to distribute the media data itself, if they're > going to be useful to anyone, is in its original form as XCF or > Blender files. I would do that if I [...] Then please do so, add them to the tarball and update the tarball. It seems you're confused with a case of circular reasoning: * The files are not useful because they're in a Techne-specific format. * Publishing the Techne-specific format (Rather or in addition to source code) is justified because these files are not useful Again, access to the source code is a precondition for free software. By denying the source code we deny the user some of his rights, please see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html. Whether the files are "temporary" or someone (I.g. You or me) consider/don't consider them "generally useful" is irrelevant to the issue. > On a sidenote and not that I disagree with your strategy regarding > copyright notices etc. but just out of curiosity. Have there been > many cases where these copyrights have actually been useful in > court, or is it just a precaution? Indeed, there have been cases. For instance see "FSF Settles Suit Against Cisco": http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-05-cisco-settlement.html. However usually the GNU GPL can be made effective with an explanion of the issue, avoiding the need to raise the issue in a court; e.g. http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL. Regards and thanks in advance. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREIAAYFAk12c+gACgkQZ4DA0TLic4iApgCfWTjeQWHFntMIKn4ULPiGAsz3 VZQAn36cfBhtTVaKO5eNyjK5hc/rH7sr =BKi3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?10974> _______________________________________________ Mensaje enviado vía/por Savannah http://savannah.gnu.org/
