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

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 03:36, Anthony Towns wrote:

> > We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
> > recordings*. 
> Actually, we're just talking about embedding sound in a GNU FDL document.
> Music, in case you hadn't noticed, is one form sound takes.

That's right. You seem to keep wanting to discuss musical scores, which
are a small subset of all sound.

> All the C code in the world won't let you recreate the last build I did
> either, unless I also give you the compiler I used. Big deal.

Depending on the license. 

> Well, no, it's not. The question is what changes do you want to make. If
> you want to change the location of two icons in a program, I don't
> think you're going to be able to do that if I give you a hexdump of an
> ELF executable.

Why not? Personally, I've changed programs using hex dumps (though it
was PEF, not ELF, but that's doubtfully relevant).

> 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.

OK, try this one: Resample a hex-dumped WAV file from 48KHz to 44.1KHz
using your text editor. Or mix several tracks down to one. Or do a phade
out. Or, well, do just about anything. Sure, it's possible --- in the
sense "anything is possible". But it makes my job of moving that icon in
an ELF executable look trivial.

> Same
> thing with most of the edits you want to do to a sound file. Some things
> are easy, some things aren't. Big deal.

Yeah, and generally, when a license is the cause of the extreme
uneasyness of modifying things, we don't call it "free"

> That's completely irrelevant too: the question that's answering is whether
> the formats specifically designed to thwart modifications. It's not.

No. It is very relevant. The question is if making revisions is
"[straightforward] with generic text editors."
> 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.

Of which, for sound, it appears there is no such thing as far as the FDL
is concerned.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: