Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
KWWU <tthinkeyetw@yahoo.com.tw> wrote: [odd quoting]
> > >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
> > readable.
Sorry, but I'm fairly sure you are wrong. Compiled GPL
perl scripts are allowed by GPL AFAIK.
> > But images/audios are always human readable in
> > various
> > formats. That's different.
I'm surprised if anyone would consider
0000000 d8ff e0ff 1000 464a 4649 0100 0101 4800
0000020 4800 0000 feff 1200 4a4d 5220 7961 202c
0000040 6f6e 6620 616c 6873 dbff 4300 0400 0303
0000060 0303 0402 0303 0403 0404 0605 060a 0506
0000100 0605 080c 0709 0e0a 0f0c 0e0e 0d0c 0f0d
0000120 1611 0f13 1510 0d11 130d 131a 1715 1918
0000140 1919 120f 1d1b 181b 161d 1918 ff18 00db
0000160 0143 0404 0604 0605 060b 0b06 1018 100d
0000200 1818 1818 1818 1818 1818 1818 1818 1818
*
[an excerpt of a JPEG image file] human-readable.
> > >[...] 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.
I don't think anyone is arguing much that images/audios
are the same as programs, just that the same freedoms are
desirable.
Why make a practical problem into a legal problem?
[...]
> > No, you can't ask everyone use script-fu. And you
> > can't ask everyone to use
> > gimp.
> > 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
> > them
> > by CC. The problems
> > happens on how licensee do. If he just modified it
> > by
> > xpaint, he distributed
> > his modified content in PNG format is reasonable.
I agree. The example of a gimp user was not mine. I
never said to ask everyone to use gimp. Just to share
the source of their images, whether it is gimp or PNG,
not to only share some output.
[...]
> > 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.
That's strange: I've met people who can read ELF binaries.
The tools I have for image editing are better than those
I have for binary editing, but I don't want to hand-edit
either file.
> > [...] And a cookbook is no meaning because it
> > won't 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.
But the sources of those drawings are the base images that
you started with and the steps which you performed. The
usefulness of the cookbook for different derived works
does not remove its meaning.
> > >It is not a good argument for accepting binaries as
> > free software.
> >
> > It is because you define source as xcf files.
I didn't, but the xcf was source in the example you gave.
> > Why not define it as any modifiable formats.
Because that is meaningless. The output of SourceGuardian
is modifiable, but it's not source.
> > [...] 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
> > allowed.
That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. CC should prohibit
using TPM to restrict other users, but should not prohibit all TPM ever.
It has done that in the past in some licences. It should do it again.
[...]
> > For example, he just play 3 wavs on 3 computers's
> > speakers and recorded it by mic.
In that situation, the source would include describing the playback setup.
> > [...] 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?
No, but the source should probably describe the singer - which is also
good for acknowledging their contributed work. When has "easily" been
a requirement for free software? Do you think that the small changes
some people make to large software projects like IceWeasel or Emacs
are always easy? But if you don't have the sources, it becomes pretty
near impossible. No artist should throw glass on the path behind them
deliberately like that.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: