A licensing question

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 4/18/06, Victor Skovorodnikov <vic_sk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Jef,
>
>  Thank you for clarifying.  I think that the link you've provided refers to
> source code.  The source code is mine and I am perfectly willing to provide
> whatever (commercial included) license you require.  But, do images also
> fall into the "Open Source" category?   While there is a lot of explanation
> of what "Open Source" is, it talks about source code I think, not images.
>
>  Can the images be licensed for non-commercial purposes while the source
> code can be for commercial as that article indicates?  After all, it is the
> code that would form the basis of my package, not the images

The package including all its subcomponents must be under acceptable
licenses. This is to help stop boobytrapped packages where some
sub-component (image, sound file, text) is included that could not be
included by a 3rd party wanting to make/sell say "Fedora Core 5 Extras
DVD" or similar party. The subcomponent does not even have to be used
by the compiled programs.. as its mere presence in the rpm/src.rpm/tar
ball/etc could result in problems for any 3rd party.

--
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator