Shlomi Fish wrote:
Right. But then again, if the copyrights owner of this art gives explicit
permission to freely distribute and copy it, there's no legal reason they
shouldn't. After all, once someone makes a work of art freely distributable,
it is freely distributable by all the people
Disclaimer: I'm a Debian Developer, but I speak for myself only. Others
in the Debian crowd may and do have different opinions.
Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 01:44, Amit Aronovitch wrote:
Ira Abramov wrote:
Quoting Shlomi Fish, from the post of Tue, 15 Feb:
From what I read, De
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 01:44, Amit Aronovitch wrote:
> Ira Abramov wrote:
> >Quoting Shlomi Fish, from the post of Tue, 15 Feb:
> >>So how does that co-exists with the Debian new policy of not allowing
> >>any type of non-free content into the core distribution? Why should
> >>graphics, musi
Ira Abramov wrote:
Quoting Shlomi Fish, from the post of Tue, 15 Feb:
So how does that co-exists with the Debian new policy of not allowing
any type of non-free content into the core distribution? Why should
graphics, music, fonts, text documents, etc. be treated in the same
way as
Quoting Shlomi Fish, from the post of Tue, 15 Feb:
>
> So how does that co-exists with the Debian new policy of not allowing
> any type of non-free content into the core distribution? Why should
> graphics, music, fonts, text documents, etc. be treated in the same
> way as software is? Why is Debi
It seems that Richard M. Stallman expressed an opinion that while the engines
of computer games (the actual binaries) should be free as in speech, the
graphics, music and stories don't necessarily need to be:
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/09/191257
(which references this a
