[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:30:15AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > OTOH, I don't think there are any "revisions" you can make to any
> > sound file that you can't also make with a text editor to a suitable
> > text dump of a WAV file.
> My point is exactly that *no* way of editing sound files will allow me
> to do the kind of changes we normally require for freedom.
> > > If it is not possible to license sound under GFDL (which I believe it
> > > is not), then the GFDL says that I must not make a modification of
> > > the work that consists of reading it aloud on a sound recording. I
> > > think that's quite easily non-free.
> > That's wrong too: that would merely be an opaque copy which is entirely
> > allowable, as long as you distribute a transparent copy as well.
> I *cannot* distribute a transparent copy of my spoken performance,
> because no such copy is possible, as argued above.

This argument might have been convincing several years ago, but it
kinda flounders when coming on the heels of a series of (commercial)
games which used text-to-speech technology instead of prerecorded
audio data. Given a decently large sample (say, your spoken
performance) it is possible to generate a fairly convincing sample
with different words in it; the rest is just work with a non-linear
audio editor.

Or, hey, ever play with soundtracker-style mod files?

This is much like saying that transparent copies of paintings are not
possible, because once committed to canvas they can't be
modified. Technology has improved since then.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'                          | Imperial College,
   `-             -><-          | London, UK

Reply to: