[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Re: [kde-artists] Crystal Clear release!
From:       Hermann Thomas <h.thomas () gmx ! de>
Date:       2005-06-23 14:08:37
Message-ID: 42BAC265.4090900 () gmx ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

Rainer Endres schrieb:

>So, you say the GPL allows to distribute closed source (I am no giving away 
>the source) binaries? Reading the text, I can not see where this is 
>explicitly denied.
>
>So MS can license Office under the (L)GPL, as long as they do not give anybody 
>the Source Code, nobody is allowed to redistribute the work?
>
>Trying to understand this.
>
>	Rainer
>  
>
Hi I haven’t been posting much in the past, but I read everything posted 
here.
Well with Artwork the end result sometimes is the source file. Just 
think of a Photo.
As far as I understand this. You can give out icons under the GPL or 
LGPL without the source because it could be that there is none. Just 
imagine Everaldo made all the Icons Pixel by Pixel in a Pixelprogramm! 
Could be! Well It wasn’t in this case but you never now. Brings us to 
the next Point. I see the GPL or LGPL to secure the original Author. If 
someone now takes the Pixel based GPL Icons and changes it into 
something else. Then the source must be committed. Al though it could be 
that there is none because of Pixel by Pixel editing...ehhh weird!?!?!
Well anyway. The KDE policy should be that there shouldn’t be any Icons 
without the SVG source file. If an Artist, like Everaldo, wants his 
Icons to be included in KDE he must give out the source. If not then it 
is a case for KDE-Look.
Like Ann-Marie said. In the long run all closed icons must go a have to 
be replaced by icons with sources.
Greetings,
Hermann
______________________________________________________________________________
kde-artists@mail.kde.org |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]