Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
> >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?
> Of course you can't. Because it is not human
> But images/audios are always human readable in
> formats. That's different.
> >Gimp can also save equivalent .xcf.bz2, which are
> 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.
> Yes, it's a pratical use problem. Just because
> images/audios are not as same
> as programs.
> Thay are not same.
> >Yes, usually, maybe with a cookbook file or some
> >that does the transformation described, if they got
> >source material under a Share-Alike licence.
> >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
> source code.
> No, you can't ask everyone use script-fu. And you
> can't ask everyone to use
> I don't mean the author of images don't want to open
> source. They want to
> open source. They use gimp xcf files and licensed
> by CC. The problems
> happens on how licensee do. If he just modified it
> xpaint, he distributed
> his modified content in PNG format is reasonable.
> Let me show an example.
> You can see that I removed the words and changed the
> color of eyes and hair.
> To modify an image is not as hard as hex editing ELF
> binaries. Because
> images are readable in modifiable formats. But ELF
> binaries are only
> readable by machines.
> This source is not licensed by CC. But let's assume
> is CC and the
> upstream put an xcf file. But I only have xpaint, so
> xcf files is no
> meaning. I must merge all layers and save it to jpg
> edit it by xpaint.
> And recoding what I do is no means either. I'm using
> WACOM tablets and the
> steps are not hard. Just use brushes and airbrushes
> with some select
> regions. And a cookbook is no meaning because it
> help me to
> re-modified it in different way or help others to
> modified it in different
> way. Drawings are usually depends on the skill of
> drawing, not digitalized
> data of steps.
> >Most artists do not want to distribute their
> 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.
> It is because you define source as xcf files. Why
> define it as any modifiable formats. Images are
> human readable, the
> remaining problem is it is modifiable or not. And
> CC artists, they are
> will to distribute their sources as xcf or psd
> the problem is at how
> downstreaming users action. If he just modified it
> saved it in png/jpg
> formats and allows others to modify it, it is
> reasonable. But if he modified
> it and use TPM/DRM method to prevent other users
> derived, it is not fair. So
> that's why CC don't request source must be attached
> but TPM must not be
> And for audios, a DJ can mixed songs into an MP3.
> he can provide
> original source files WAV formats. But it's no
> because he can mix
> them by hardware machines.
> For example, he just play 3 wavs on 3 computers's
> speakers and recorded it
> by mic.
> I must say that the programs are not equivalent to
> images/audios. And you
> should not define the source of images/audios too
> easily. For example, if a
> song is "free software" with GPL licensed, can you
> easily change a word of
> lyrics in wav easily? No because the source is the
> singer's throat. So they
> should licensed the singer's throat to GPL or it is
> not free software?
您的生活即時通 － 溝通、娛樂、生活、工作一次搞定！