Follow-up Comment #8, patch #7696 (project freeciv):
> Not going to happen,
This makes me feel really sad. Free software is based on collaboration, and
sharing the source is required to achieve that.
> I'll put gzipped C source to data/graphics if it makes u happy.
As that source code (1) can't be used to produce the binary rcc (at least
using standard Qt tools) and (2) doesn't provide easy access to the individual
icons, it won't make me "happier".
This is the argument I never thought I would ever need to use. The GPLv2
says:
> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it.
I think this implies the source code is the qrc file together with all the
files needed to build the rcc, and nothing else. Indeed, look at the
"standard" (=what's in the Qt doc) procedure to get a rcc file:
* Write a XML-based .qrc and put its dependencies at the right locations
* Invoke the Qt Resource Compiler, rcc
* You have a .rcc blob
Now compare this to the procedure for compiling C to object code, and you'll
see it's quite similar. There are powerful tools to modify assembly directly,
just like there is GammaRay. This makes me think of the qrc-based tree as the
"source code".
If my reasoning is right, distributing Freeciv with the rcc file only would be
a violation of the copyright of everyone who contributed to Freeciv before.
This would make it illegal to distribute Freeciv. I don't want this to
happen.
In summary, to your
> Not going to happen,
I oppose "You're legally bound by the license and have to do something like
that."
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/patch/?7696>
_______________________________________________
Message posté via/par Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
