Ken Arromdee escribe: > 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. In the case of artistic creation it also happens that one can't tell where "source" ends. Take as an example a photography. The "source" of the photography involves the place where it was taken. But not only, it also involves the daylight the picture was taken with, the people passing by, why not also the inspiration of the photographer. I insist, artistic creations can't use the same licenses as documentation or software. The effort must focus on make artistic licenses and other ones as compatible as posible. This seems obvious to me. Cordially, Ismael -- Ismael Valladolid Torres m. +34679156321 La media hostia j. ivalladt@gmail.com http://lamediahostia.blogspot.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature