Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
KWWU <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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,
> 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
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
I'd agree that an encrypted format is probably not a
> 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
> 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