Re: source for artwork
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 06:35:20PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Sylvain <beuc@debian.org> [2014-02-23 11:42:45 CET]:
> > I guess that you do *not* recommend that we should accept any "art"
> > provided it's freely licensed, do you?
>
> If it's freely licensed, why not?
Because you technically cannot modify it, like an obfuscated source code.
> > - huge all-bundled binary with no released tool to modify
>
> Then those aren't really following their own license probably, if it's a
> DFSG compatible free license.
That one was Beneath A Steel Sky.
Apparently I wasn't clear enough that 5 first use cases where examples
of "we need source code" and last 2 "there's hardly any source code".
You say we agree (we need art source form when there's one) so let's
end it there.
--
Sylvain
> > Use cases:
> > - a .ogg when there's unreleased MIDI+sound fonts
>
> I've talked with an audio artist once and was told that the midi files
> are mostly useless because you can't go from them to the finished
> product with any useful approach. The way filters and other stuff are
> applied makes it much more practical to either start from scratch if you
> want to change something, or just edit the resulting file with more
> filters.
>
>
> > - obfuscated BSD maze-generating Perl code
>
> Ofuscation got waf into troubles, if you don't remember.
>
> > - digitalized version of non-digital artwork
>
> You mean a photo taken of a painting? I wouldn't be surprised if we
> have something in the pool, and I wouldn't see why not.
>
> > - heavily and manually 2D-post-processed rendering of a 3D model
>
> Here the 3d model doesn't make much sense because you can't "produce"
> the result anymore if the process was so heavy and manually, can you.
>
> > I've met quite a lot of the first 5 ones, far more editable with the
> > source forms; less of the last 2, admittedly hard to edit
> > independently of any source form.
>
> Since when are images "hard to edit"? I can't follow you. And yes, if
> the first ogg file you mentioned is rather just a midi sequencer
> "rendering", then yes, it would make sense to have the midi file in the
> first place. Most ogg files I've encountered don't fall into that
> category though, see above.
>
> > There's a fuzzy general case, yes. But more often than not nowadays,
> > pieces of art do have some level of source code.
>
> Right. Still I think we are talking gnerally about something that we
> agree anyway: We do definitely prefer to have source for sound and image
> files. But we also have to realize that those sometimes simply doesn't
> make sense, and that artwork is different than code. That was one of
> the important realizations why the Creative Commons license appeared in
> the first place: because the GPL doesn't make too much sense for
> artwork.
>
> We are discussing that we want source for everything, and yet we don't
> even know what the source for some things actually *is*, or what would
> be preferable for them. And it is totally different on what kind of
> artwork it actually is, what makes sense. We have to realize that the
> binary approach that works for actual code doesn't work for artwork, and
> that there is no black and white in that area, only shades of gray
> (unless the artwork is as simple as a "hello world" program).
>
> Enjoy,
> Rhonda
> --
> Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los |
> Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los | Wir sind Helden
> Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
> Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los |
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-games-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] 20140223173520.GA20702@anguilla.debian.or.at">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20140223173520.GA20702@anguilla.debian.or.at
>
Reply to: