Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 03:01:29AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Michael Banck wrote: >> > In contrast, having the possibilty to modify $APPLICATION's stock >> > 'File->Open' icon in its native form, i.e. gimp layers or whatever >> > seems to be of less importance by several orders of magnitude, as long >> > as we can *somehow* fix it by e.g. replacing it with another one, or >> > fixing it by gimping it up or so. I mean, very few of us are graphic >> > designers or so. >> Well, I suppose the graphic designers among Debian should comment. :-) > > How many are there? How often do you have to modify graphics when > packaging stuff?
How often do you 'have to' modify programs? It's not just about when you 'have to', it's also about when you *want to*. I *want to* modify graphics and sounds rather often. I believed that Debian was supposed to free software, not merely "software which you have the right to modify for the limited purposes of making it run on your computer". >> > Same goes with fonts. >> Likewise. > > You'd find even less people who'd design fonts. And I don't know how > many would just modify a given font or rather create a new one from > scratch. Most would prefer to modify preexisting fonts. I've talked to people who do make typefaces, and almost all of them are based on other typefaces. > >> > Even less so with "You've got mail" sounds or >> > so, what's the use in having the Cubase samples for that or something? >> > We could still edit the waveform somehow, even if that would be a bit >> > more tedious >> Ow. A lot more tedious. > > Sure. But how often do you have to modify sounds when packaging stuff? > Compared to modifying Makefiles or C source code? > > I agree that programs shipping sounds for the sake of *creating* music > (like samples for a tracker) should be capital F free so that people > making music can use them in a useful way. But I don't believe the same > holds for a 'You've got mail' sound from e.g. Evolution. While there's definitely an important distinction here, this is a deeply problematic and difficult distinction to pin down. License texts are currently exempted partly based on a somewhat similar argument; but they fall much further on one side of the line. I think that the right to *repurpose* a derived work is important; just having the right to modify and use it for the original work's original purpose is not enough. Also, the right to *replace* the "You've got mail" sound is clearly essential. Given that, if the sound is not legally modifiable -- but you have the right to remove it and replace it -- isn't it easier all around, and clearer to users and modifiers, to use a modifiable sound? > Perhaps the crucial part is to look whether the file in question can be > reasonably/typically used to create new art/software as opposed to just > accompain a bigger package. Well, I haven't found one which couldn't be. > Source code is fundamentally different, > because that's in the scope of our core business. Um. Is this really a good, valuable distinction? Then perhaps Debian should put all graphics in 'non-free', since they're not 'core', but merely added value. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
