On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:54:33 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote: [...] > 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. You're talking about the *means and objects* preferred for *retaking* the photo from scratch. The source is instead the preferred *form* (of the photo) for making *modifications* to it. The place where a photo was taken is *not* a form of the photo! Nor are the people passing by! In most cases, source for a photo is the form in which it is downloaded from the digital camera; or some other format, if one prefers using that format in order to modify the image... The key word is "modify", not "recreate" from scratch. > > I insist, artistic creations can't use the same licenses as > documentation or software. [...] I disagree: any software work[1] can be released under the terms of well-drafted licenses (such as the GNU GPL v2, the Expat/MIT license, ...). [1] I use the term "software" in its broadest meaning, see http://frx.netsons.org/essays/softfrdm/whatissoftware.html -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpT4BEFxStoC.pgp
Description: PGP signature