Re: Free Art License
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:58:17 -0700, Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> wrote:
>> Say something like a graphical image of a button that is basically
>> text + a few filters to add a 3d effect and such. If I want to
>> change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull way, so that
>> it fits together with other buttons that ues the same style, I need
>> to know the filters and parameters that where used in the process,
>> however often that is something that not even the orignal author
>> might remember after a few days. Won't the resulting work be
>> undistributable under GPL due to the lack of source?
> No. What you have currently is (from what you have explained) the
> prefered form for modification. This is no different from code that is
> badly documented where the author has a stroke and is no longer able
> to explain his code. The prefered form for modification is still
> extant, and is being distributed.
I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to
make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have
everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I
only have the 'binary', I don't have any 'source' information that
would allow me to modify the resulting work in any meaningfull way. I
consider this more similar to somebody who is writing a programm in C,
then compiling it and then losing the source code (diskcrash, rm,
whatever). To my understanding the resulting binary is undistributable
under the GPL.
> It depends on the specific case. In my opinion, almost all of those
> media types actually have a prefered form for modification.
Depends, I have hardly seen any .xcf, .blend or source formats for
.ogg/.mp3 in the wild, in this context basically all games fail to
fullfill the GPL.
Reply to: