>> I disagree. A jpeg or .doc file is not source code in any sense of >> the word, thus the GPL is completely irrelevant (I think we agree on >> that). > > That simply isn't so. To quote the GPL: > "This License applies to any program or other work ..." > "The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, ..."
Are you arguing that jpeg's produced by GIMP are all GPL'd? I agree that it is definitely possible to release "non-programs", such as JPEGs, under the GPL. But, in the case of GIMP producing a JPEG, most of us don't consider the JPEG a derived work of GIMP. Why not? * The JPEG stands on its own and can be "used" independently of GIMP. * The part of GIMP that is licensed under the GPL is its source code. I am not sure, but I think it is C++. Derived works of GIMP must therefore also be C++ programs or a program in another language that is able of directly linking to and calling C++. Sure someone brought up the issue of the odd language for which bitmaps are source code. In that case, a bitmap can absolutely be a derived work. But, it doesn't follow that all bitmaps are derived work of all programming languages. Cheers, Brian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
