And they can always say no.
And I thought if you asked someone to do something they
had to do it.
(I was being sarcastic there, just incase you didn't realise.)
I'm not fucking retarded, sheezus!
No mistake and no stupidity either, the GPL states that the source should be available to everyone. I know you could just sell people CDs with the binary + source but you couldn't stop them from releasing the sourceto the publiuc domain (i.e. putting it on their website) unless you're advocating semi-copyrighted material or shared source (like some agreements between governments and MS or open source games with copyrighted art and sound or Linux distros containing a proprietary element) all of which aren't completely free.
Okay so it wasn't a mistake, just plain stupidy, as you shall see:
the program itself is free but the art and sound are copyrighted.
Most likely it'd all be copyright, not only the artwork. The program would be protected by copyright too, in most cases. According to you it isn't.
An intelligent being would've written more along these lines:
The sofware is free (as in freedom), but the artwork has a stricter license preventing redistribution/whatever.
Are you taking the piss?
No.
Read the post you were origionally replying to.
JARULES? Err, I don't think you were commenting on his post. So just answer my question, simply.
