Firefox trademark shenanigans (Re: Any chance of getting Firefox 2.0 into rawhide/FC6?)

[Nicu Buculei]

Keith G wrote:
>> It's unclear who's right.  I've heard arguments from other lawyers that
>> the GPL simply cannot apply to images as the GPL itself explicitly
>> refers to "source code" and its arguable whether an image is (I don't
>> personally think images are source code, but a lawyer I am not).  A
>> license that better serves images such as a CC license might work best.
> 
> I am not a lawyer either, but I agree with this interpretation of the
> GPL.  And yet many people do license images under the GPL.  It's
> certianly very unclear whether this would stand up in court or not.
> IMO the FSF should release another version of the GPL specifically for
> "media" instead of "source code"'.

We had this discussion on Fedora Art when pondering the license for the 
new icon theme (Echo) and have NOT reached a consensus yet.
CC-BY-SA (attribution, share-alike) has it own troubles, some people 
argue it is not compatible with GPL.

OTOH, if the graphics is created in vector format, say SVG, I think it 
can be argued this vector format *is* source code and the exported PNG 
is something like a compiled binary.

-- 
nicu
Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/
Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org
my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro