Re: Free Art License

[Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>]

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:10:01AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-09-30 04:27:05 +0100 Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>>It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would 
> >>>be
> >>>for a piece of media. [...]
> >>So specify it.
> >That's a very bad idea; it'd merely be *his* preferred form, and the 
> >GPL
> >doesn't say "the original author's preferred form of the work for 
> >making
> >modifications to it".
> 
> Why is it a bad idea for the copyright holders to say "I consider .... 
> the preferred form for modifying this program" in doubt? They are the 
> ones who will be trying to enforce the licence. Far from being 
> irrelevant, it's a useful hint for licensees that could help clear 
> things up. Of course, if the work has ben transformed the work in some 
> fundamental way, the original copyright holders' opinion will be less 
> relevant.
>
> The rest of your message dealt with the case "the preferred form for 
> modifying this program is the C code", which I think is stronger, 
> different and not what I meant.

If so, then I have no idea what you meant; please be more specific (ie.
give an example).  This is an example of a misguided specification of
"preferred form for modifying this program" that is likely to result
from your suggestion.

-- 
Glenn Maynard