Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
"Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu)" <grandpaul@gmail.com> writes:
> So, for creative works, the source is hard to be defined by format.
It's the creativity of a work that allows it to be covered by
copyright. Non-creative works -- e.g. a plain listing of the digits of
a mathematical constant -- are generally deemed un-copyrightable.
I don't see what distinction you're making there with "creative
works". Are you making some distinction between a software work which
happens to be interpreted as a program and a software work which
happens to be interpreted in some other way? I don't think that's a
relevant distinction.
> Not like programs, we can easily know what is machine code and what
> is high level language code in most situations. We can only ask the
> author of the creative works to release their work honestly because
> in most situation we can't distinguish the source and binary if the
> author is lying. If the last format he has is wav, then he should
> release wav. If the last format he has is mp3, then mp3.
Yes. The GPL's definition of "source" is a good one: "the preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it". We have to, as you
say, make a judgement call as to whether the author of the work is
being truthful about that preferred form.
> The same thing also happens on images, like xcf/psd or png/jpg/gif or
> whatever. But the author should release the true source he really has.
Yes. The form that they prefer for making modifications to the work.
--
\ "If you do not trust the source do not use this program." -- |
`\ Microsoft Vista security dialogue |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: