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

Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments

KWWU <tthinkeyetw@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
> >Indeed.  Sadly, CC's anti-TPM language may(*) 
> >prohibit iSuck owners
> >applying TPM themselves, as the copy would violate 
> >the licence and the
> >anti-TPM measure is not limited to distribution.  [...]
> Isn't this a case of fair use?

Why would that be so and would it save people in places without
US-style Fair Use in law?

> >Should we accept as free software a program under a 
> >licence which does
> >not allow licensees to distribute compiled files?
> >
> >The correct way to fix this is for CC to require 
> >source code, not prohibit compiled code.
> Think about GPL scripts. The source code is the
> compiled code. So you must distribute them in that
> form, no compiled ones.

I'm thinking about them.  Surely I can take a GPL perl script and run it
through a compiler, even the undump trick, and distribute that compiled
form, as long as I comply with the source supply requirements of the GPL,
can't I?

> And CC usually applies to images and audios.
> For images, the source may be an .xcf (created by
> gimp) file. It is usually very large.

Gimp can also save equivalent .xcf.bz2, which are not so large.  Even if
so, largeness of the source relative to the binary isn't usually a major
consideration for licenses themselves.  It's a practical use problem.

> Other users
> can merge all layers first and adjust hue/brightness
> because it is more easily (to adjust all layers, merge
> is the easist way) and finally saved it to an PNG file
> (single layer). Do he need to distribute with .xcf
> file?

Yes, usually, maybe with a cookbook file or some script-fu
that does the transformation described, if they got the
source material under a Share-Alike licence.

> For png file, it can be a modifiable format. 

Please can someone tell me how to obtain the layers again after they
have been merged?

I can modify ELF binaries, but that doesn't make them source code.

> So for most artists uses CC, they could agree you
> distribute that PNG file. They may care their
> work is derivable or not. Not the original or
> specific format.

Most artists do not want to distribute their sources?  So be it.
Most programmers today seem not to distribute their sources either.
It is not a good argument for accepting binaries as free software.

> But if it is encrypted then 
> it is not a modifiable format. And most of us cannot
> agree.

I'd agree that an encrypted format is probably not a
modifiable one.

> Same on audio files, singers sing songs and saved
> them to a WAV file. DJ can mix some WAV files and
> saved them into MP3/OGG file. Should that DJ
> distribute the source (wav) files?

Probably, yes, if they got them under a Share-Alike licence.

> Since MP3/OGG files are
> still modifiable, so it can be considered a source.

Please can someone tell me how to obtain the wavs again after they
have been mixed and encoded?  Again, this seems like hex-editing
ELF binaries.

> But if they are encrypted by WMA with DRM, then it's
> not. And most of us cannot agree.

Again, I'd agree that a WMA-DRM is probably not a source.

> I don't think anti-TPM clause is non-free because
> audio/images are not as same as programs.

I think that reasoning confuses two unrelated topics.  It seems
like saying "I like pasta because the sky is blue."

> They don't have source codes. Or, some different
> formats can be considered as a source (lossy
> compressed formats), but some formats cannot (DRM). 

Above, the XCF is clearly described as the source material
of the PNG, and the WAVs as source of the MP3/OGG/WMA, so
I think it's obvious that they do have sources.

Hope that explains,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: