savannah-register-public
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-register-public] [task #10974] Submission of Slipstream


From: Mario Castelán Castro
Subject: [Savannah-register-public] [task #10974] Submission of Slipstream
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 18:31:05 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; es-AR; rv:1.9.0.19) Gecko/2010072022 Iceweasel/3.0.6 (Debian-3.0.6-3)

Follow-up Comment #3, task #10974 (project administration):

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

2011-03-08 in GNU Savannah task #10974: "Submission of Slipstream".

> Regarding the media files themselves. They are distributed in source
> form in a way. The reason why I doubt they'll be useful to anyone is
> that they have been converted to a format very specific to Techne
> which is actually a string in Lua with all the binary data of the
> image or geometry model.

"in a way" is misleading.  Either they're in source code form or
they're not.  "Binary data" encoded as a Lua string is clearly not the
preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

> It would be theoretically easy for anyone to convert it back but I
> suppose the way to distribute the media data itself, if they're
> going to be useful to anyone, is in its original form as XCF or
> Blender files. I would do that if I [...]

Then please do so, add them to the tarball and update the tarball.

It seems you're confused with a case of circular reasoning:

* The files are not useful because they're in a Techne-specific
  format.

* Publishing the Techne-specific format (Rather or in addition to
  source code) is justified because these files are not useful

Again, access to the source code is a precondition for free software.
By denying the source code we deny the user some of his rights, please
see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html.  Whether the files
are "temporary" or someone (I.g. You or me) consider/don't consider
them "generally useful" is irrelevant to the issue.

> On a sidenote and not that I disagree with your strategy regarding
> copyright notices etc. but just out of curiosity. Have there been
> many cases where these copyrights have actually been useful in
> court, or is it just a precaution?

Indeed, there have been cases.  For instance see "FSF Settles Suit
Against Cisco": http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-05-cisco-settlement.html.
However usually the GNU GPL can be made effective with an explanion of
the issue, avoiding the need to raise the issue in a court; e.g.
http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL.

Regards and thanks in advance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREIAAYFAk12c+gACgkQZ4DA0TLic4iApgCfWTjeQWHFntMIKn4ULPiGAsz3
VZQAn36cfBhtTVaKO5eNyjK5hc/rH7sr
=BKi3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?10974>

_______________________________________________
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]