Simon Law: > That's because all these people are using it acceptable. But > that doesn't mean that our logo is _free software_. For reference, > please read the debian-legal thread I linked to.
To me the argument falls flat here before it even starts: the logotype isn't software, and can't be treated as such, even less than documentation can be treated as software (which also is quite an absurd notion). What's up next, claiming that the names of authors and package maintainers are software, and that they are freely changeable by anyone? And license statements? -- \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
