Re: source for artwork
* Sylvain <beuc@debian.org> [2014-02-23 11:42:45 CET]:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:21:13AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > And here we are: There is no source *code* for art in general.
>
> 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?
> 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.
> - still images when there's an original 3D model + textures + rendering params
> - set of generated vertices when there's an high-level level editor + map
> - 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.
> - 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 |
Reply to: