Ben Finney escribe: > Careful. This doesn't distinguish programs from other intellectual > creations; there is a huge amount of artistry in programming. Sure from a programmer's point of view, but just ask an artist who knows something about programming which amount or artistry is there in each one of the activities. > Sure, if we refuse to define "source" then ipso facto we can't tell > what it applies to. I agree with this. > If, instead, we *define* the "source" of the work so that it's as the > GPL defines it, then all these impossible-to-provide environmental > factors you cite are not required. All that's required to meet > "source" is the preferred form of the work for making modifications. Again I agree but there exists "sampling" which is a way for making modifications of existing material without the need of "source". Just think about collage... > Programs, documentation, data, audio and images do not have clear > dividing lines. They can all be represented digitally, they can all be > interpreted in different categories depending on the need. But "artistry" can't be represented digitally so that's the bleeding edge where efforts should stop. > What they all share is that they can all be covered by copyright, and > thus licensed. I recommend that such a license not be restricted to a > particular field of endeavour. Again more or less I agree. > Here we agree. I think all free licenses should be compatible, to > allow maximum freedom of creativity and sharing in the work. Cordially, Ismael -- Ismael Valladolid Torres m. +34679156321 La media hostia j. ivalladt@gmail.com http://lamediahostia.blogspot.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature