Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?

[Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net>]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If the original author puts a video under GPL and doesn't release
> > the "source", you can't demand it. He's not bound by the GPL since
> > he can't violate the copyright on his own work, so he has no
> > obligation to give you anything.
> This is the same problem that exists for any work under the GPL;
> there's nothing special about recordings here.

The difference with recordings is that it's much more plausible that the
author would do this.  Video source is more awkward than program source,
and video binaries are more useful than program binaries.

This means that there are many content creators who don't want to release
"source", not because they want to restrict their users, but because they
don't think the hassle is worth it--it's a much greater hassle for a much
smaller benefit, than releasing the source of a program.  Indeed, it's much
more likely the author might not even realize that the GPL requires his
raw video or audio files.

So yes, the same problem *can* exist for any work, but the special
circumstances of media files make it much more likely.