Re: a LICENSE file does not necessarily apply to everything in a repo

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > i could have worded that better - what is says is that it must
  > be made clear, what qualifies as the
  > complete-corresponding-source for the work - the GPL presumes
  > that the CCS form is obvious for executables; but that is not so
  > obvious for other blobs such as images and audio - the CCS for
  > those, may be in many different forms,

GPL 3 has a definition of source code which is very general.
I think it will give good results for all sorts of works.
Have you seen any specific example where you think it would not?

                                           including other binaries
  > (eg: GIMP .xcf files); and those formats are often proprietary -

If compiling the work requires nonfree tools, that would violate GPL
3, I think.

I don't think it is legal to specify in a different way what
constitutes source code.  I think it violates section 7.
I never asked a lawyer, though.  Have you?

That is a tangent in this list -- please let's discuss it off the
list.




-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)