Hi, On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Michael Schumacher <schumaml@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 28.10.2013 19:59, scl wrote: >> Hi, >> >> in matter of the unclear license situation I asked the FSF >> for clarification and like to share their answer (see below). >> It's not a legal advice, but I hope it sheds us some light >> on the issue. > > Unfortunately your mail seems to discard the fact that the icons are run > through gdk-pixbuf-csource. So the FSF probably assumed that the icons > are included as individual files alongside the binaries. I wonder though. Do we *have to* compile them as source files? I mean, users can provide their own themes, thus their own icon set too, right? And I assume these icons won't be extracted into source files, since they are loaded at runtime. So that means the default icons could be just provided "alongside" the binaries too, just as third-party's are. So why do we extract them? Is it like for some efficiency gain reason (like the default theme would be "faster" than any third-party theme)? I mean, there cannot possibly be that a huge gain that it is worth to do so, compared to licensing issues. Or is there any other reason? Thanks. Jehan > > -- > Regards, > Michael > GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD > _______________________________________________ > gimp-developer-list mailing list > List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
