Re: GPL on rendered images
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> writes:
> In the above case, if the disassembled output becomes my preferred
> form for modification--if it's what I actually use to modify the
> program--I don't have to distribute the C source. It's not useful
> for modifying the binary I'm distributing, so it certainly can't be
> the preferred form for modification.
The throuble is that the prefered form of modification depends heavily
on the type of modification that I want to do. Just for scaling up,
applying some filters or whatever the .png is perfectly fine, if I
want to remove some text-layer that was applied a .xcf will do, if I
want to change the perspective I need the 3d model. So basically I
have to save all intermediate steps and distribute them. And yet there is
still the throuble with photos, what do I include there? If I
photograph some object and want to change perspective, I rephotograph
the object, neither .png nor .xcf will allow that and I can't ship the
objects as source code either, since its a physical thing.
There is also the throuble with textures from texture-cd-collection or
from the web that are only allowed to be redistributed in their
rendered form, ie. redistributing the rendered image under any license
I am free to do, redistributing the plain texture itself that was used
in that image I am however not to do. What do to there? Not use the
image at all or just leave out the texture or only include the final
rendered image?
Another throublesome point would be camera position and light, say I
render a sprite for a 2d game from numerous different perspective, is
it ok to just ship the 3d model or do I have to include the camera
positions and the positions of the light? In some cases those might of
course be in the 3d model file, in others however the artists might
simply add them manually on each render, so they are nowhere to be
found beside in the artists head. Is the artists require to at least
document the basic steps of the render process when its not fully
automated via scripts?
And another question, is a .psd or a 3D Max file enough? Aren't I
required to include a copy of Photoshop or 3DStudio then or is it
considered a part of the "operating system"?
Last not least what if the artist wants to keep his model files
private, ie. a 2d game would only need the rendered model files, but
never the 3d ones in case the 2d images are fine. Is it possible to
use such files at all or do I have to reject everything that comes
from the artist?
Overall I find the GPL quite throublesome and what to include isn't
really clear at all, shiping the 3d models is of course a nice gesture
and a usefull thing anyway, but I don't think its much more then that
and if it really does fullfill the requirements of the GPL is kind of
doubtfull. However since Debian doesn't accept the 'Creative Commons
by-sa-2.0' license, which would be IMHO a bunch better license for
media, people will continue to use the GPL in a more or less non
fullfilled way.
--
WWW: http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/
JabberID: grumbel@jabber.org
ICQ: 59461927
Reply to: