Re: A GPL-compatible license for photos and music. Which?
Francesco Poli wrote:
So, think about your photographic work: which form would you start from,
if you wanted to modify it? That is the source!
For instance, if you take photographs with a digital camera that saves
pictures in JPEG format, and want to publish those pictures, your source
is probably in JPEG format. Why? Because, if you wanted to make
modifications to your photographs, you would probably prefer using the
JPEG format as the basis.
I don't understand this. For photographs, modifications doen't really
make sense (apart from some adjustement). If you want to "modify" a
photo, probably the best way is to change the cadrage, or (depending
what you are photographying) change the scene that you are
photographying. If you take a photo of a person, you can also ask
him/her to change to smale or take a different facial expression... This
way the "prefered form" for modification would include objects/people
you are photographying and we would come to an absurdity. GPL is not
desinged at all for photography. For music its depend of the type of
music: if you have made your music with a computer we can problably find
a prefered form of modification. But if the music is a recording of a an
instrument, once again the music is not really modifiable.