I've just had a hilarious moment.
You know how hardcore the GPL is about freedom? I just found a case that is a GNU project, no less, that doesn't even adhere to its own licence.
For my current plugin, I needed some images, and a particular GNU project has some that are - with some work - suitable. The FAQ page makes it quite clear that the images are licensed under the GPLv3,[1] which is fine (even though they're images, some of the images are provided in a code format for linking directly into C executables, not uncommon on older X software)
Here's the gotcha. It says quite clearly that if my software is GPL, I'm allowed to use them, but if it's in any way non GPL, I'm not and have to ask permission. Which would be true, if the GPL didn't give me a get out of jail free card.
I've created an image out of the provided images (a CSS sprite, in this case), and I'm not linking to the file in execution, but indirectly which is defined as a common interface, so I actually have to do nothing other than make it clear the individual file itself is GPL, but it just hit me how their site seems to imply that I need to ask for permission to do something expressly granted in the GPL itself, even in the GPLv3.
You know how hardcore the GPL is about freedom? I just found a case that is a GNU project, no less, that doesn't even adhere to its own licence.
For my current plugin, I needed some images, and a particular GNU project has some that are - with some work - suitable. The FAQ page makes it quite clear that the images are licensed under the GPLv3,[1] which is fine (even though they're images, some of the images are provided in a code format for linking directly into C executables, not uncommon on older X software)
Here's the gotcha. It says quite clearly that if my software is GPL, I'm allowed to use them, but if it's in any way non GPL, I'm not and have to ask permission. Which would be true, if the GPL didn't give me a get out of jail free card.
I've created an image out of the provided images (a CSS sprite, in this case), and I'm not linking to the file in execution, but indirectly which is defined as a common interface, so I actually have to do nothing other than make it clear the individual file itself is GPL, but it just hit me how their site seems to imply that I need to ask for permission to do something expressly granted in the GPL itself, even in the GPLv3.
| 1. | v3 isn't nearly so brain-dead and last-century as v2 is. |
