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

Re: photo licenses



On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:19:24 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:

> On 11/08/06 01:27, Maarten de Boer wrote:
> 
> > I placed my own photos under CC 1.0, but I understand that this
> > is not acceptable? I can change them under the GPL, but would
> 
> The GPL is fine for images.

I agree, definitely fine.

> Just package them up with the rest of the
> source for your game and include a standard COPYING file. This is what
> is done for a large majority of the artwork you see when you use a GUI
> in Debian.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

I am strongly convinced that source (as defined in the GNU GPL, that is
to say, the preferred form for making modifications to the work) is
always a key element of what you must make available, if you really want
to distribute Free Software.  By "always" I mean: independently of what
typology of software you are distributing (programs, documents, images,
audio, animations, ...).

Hence, IMO, source should be made available for images, as well.
If some (many or few, it doesn't matter) Debian packages include images
or artwork whose source is being kept secret or anyway unavailable,
well, that's a bug that should be fixed.
Actually, it seems to not be recognized as a bug, under the current RMs'
interpretation of the DFSG, but I really hope that this will change in a
near future...  :-(

Now, the problem becomes: what is source for a digital image?
Again, the preferred form for making modifications to it.

The question that Maarten should ask himself is: "if I wanted to modify
this image, which form would I make modifications to?".
If the answer is "the unscaled JPEG that went out of the digital
camera", then, well, that is the source.
If instead the answer is "the scaled version, of course", then, well,
that is the source.
If the answer is "XYZ", then, well, that is the source.
And so forth...

The issue here is making available all the necessary data for modifying
the work in an optimal way: doing otherwise puts the original author in
an unfair position of advantage with respect to the recipient(s), when
the need (or will) to make modifications arises.


> 
> Using obscure, unique or mixed licenses often causes confusion.

True.

> 
> > that oblige me to give access to the original jpegs as downloaded
> 
> This isn't how the authors of other free software have interpreted
> things.

That doesn't necessarily mean that those authors are right...

Authors of other (seemingly, but not really) free software have
interpreted the GNU GPL v2 in all kinds of weird, awkward or absurd
ways: that doesn't necessarily mean that they are right!


-- 
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: pgprKOPrHG6MZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: