Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:17:41PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > For images, fonts, and sounds, he makes an exception for the source > > code requirement. For many of these, there is no sensible source code > > anyway, and so DFSG 2 doesn't require it. That is, the image is > > itself the source code. > > That's a statement I would like to know whether it is accepted by all > the other developers? I think I agree (without having thought this > through a lot), but I was not aware that this was the standard way of > interpreting things, certainly not after the recent dicussions. > > For example, people say that our logo was non-free.
Yes, but not because of a lack of source. It's allegedly non-free because of the usage restrictions. (I am not sure that this really makes it non-free, incidentally, but I'm not interested in arguing the point.) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
