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

Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:50:32 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:

> KWWU <tthinkeyetw@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
> > >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.

100 % agreement with MJ's answers.
(sorry for quoting all this stuff, but I wanted to make it clear what I
agree with...).

But it is also tradition that times *must* and always
do change, my friend.   -- from _Coming to America_
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpUpY2w0bUhT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: