> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > The list is irrelevant as the applicability of the Debian Free > > _Software_ guidelines to graphical images is even more dubious than > > its applicability to documentation.
The number of Debian Developers that care so little about freedom for anything not a program is extremely discouraging. On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 03:08:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > When originally written, it was intented that the DFSG apply to the > entire content of main.[1] We have (to my knowledge) consistently > interpreted it this way. Of course, it seems everyone has their pet non-free that they'd like to be an exception, be they logos, "snippets", manifestos or Netscape, which is a strong reason to reject them all and avoid that slope. > > I am closing this bug again for the same reason I closed it > > initially. Like treating the bubonic plague by giving the victim a > > hanky, you are trying to cure a minor symptom instead of the cause. > > The logo license is ambiguous. > > That might be true, but it's ambiguity doesn't change it's free or > non-freeness. It might. A license may be non-free because it is too unclear to be unambiguously interpreted as free. The unclarified Artistic license should probably fall in this category (ignoring "grandfather clause" interpretations of DFSG#10, which is really just an escape hatch to avoid having to deal with problems in those licenses). -- Glenn Maynard
