Andreas Pour writes:

> Dominique Devriese wrote: [ ... ]
>> What constitutes the source of a licensed work is not
>> subject to interpretation, the GPL and LGPL clearly define it as
>> follows:
>>
>>   The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
>>   making modifications to it.

> Section 3 doesn't really apply since a PNG icon is not in "object
> code or executable form"

Ok, you may be right about this.

However, this still seems like a very risky interpretation for us
non-lawyers to be making.  When a judge is given the task of
interpreting what the licensor meant with the license, I can imagine
him deciding that he probably would have meant the SVG as the
"sources".  

All in all, I hope you agree that this is pretty unstable legal
ground, and every effort should be made to make the icon's "sources"
available.  IMHO, this is still a showstopper bug.

cheers
domi