On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:53:57AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > For example, people say that our logo was non-free. > > It's non-free due to restrictions on use, distribution, and > modification, not due to a lack of source.
OK, I didn't research very well, being short of time. > There is certainly a current of opinion among developers that separate > source forms are less meaningful for images than for programs, though > it's also not universally accepted. There are quite a few modifications > one can usefully make to a bitmapped image, compared to relatively few > changes you can make to a binary executable. Well, yeah. But somehow I feel we're losing sight of what's important here. Having the full source code (and not something obfuscted beyond recognition) for a computer program so we are able to fix bugs and, if necessary, fork it, seems to be essential to what we're doing, namely providing the world with a operating system that rocks (and is free, yada, yada). 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. Same goes with fonts. 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. But all those do not block us from making a Free OS that rocks, as opposed to not having (i) the source and (ii) the documentation. Sure, there are some valid applications for the above examples. For instance, I believe we should make as much source available as possible for Debian-specific graphics/artwork/sounds/fonts. Like e.g. a Debian-specific GNOME/KDE splash screen or desktop wallpaper, so that other groups inside of Debian have the least hassle to adopt that type of media to their needs. IMHO, we should be pragmatic here in the limits the social contract and the DFSG allow. Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you give. We should be ruled by the concern whether included that particular array of bits will (i) improve our distribution, (ii) improve the Free Software community and (iii) do not impose unreasonable restriction on the aggregated package. I'm not sure whether the other developers think alike and if so, whether we should clarify on this or whether that is the standard reading of the social contract. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
