Re: GPL on rendered images
Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> The GPL merely makes it obvious that your problem is hard. "Don't do
> that, then" is not a reasonable answer to the problem of making your
> images free. It's not free unless other people can modify it to suit
> their purposes. Every example you can possibly give of this form, if
> valid, falls into this class.
> Any license which dodges such problems is merely *giving up*. It's
> not making the image reliably free.
Well, yes its in part dodging, but only because I don't see that there
will be any reasonable way to have a clear definition of source for
images or media in general in the near or even far future. And even if
one had one it would often be highly impractical to distribute it (ie.
gigabytes of uncompressed videos). Creating an image or rendering a
model never was or will be the same as writing source code, with the
current tools one 'compiles' all the time while creating the image,
intermediate steps are simply lost and I don't see that changing
So well, what todo in the meantime? Not distribute any kind of images
at all beside the most trivial ones? Include all intermediate steps?
Maybe even document all intermediate steps? It kind of gets pretty
much impractical and its simply rather clear that the GPL was never
created to cover anything other than source.