Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> writes:
> Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Under GPL v3, when we convey a work in a non-source form, we must
> > satisfy all of 6d. That requires making the Corresponding Source
> > available, which we cannot.
> >
> > Under GPL v2, we distribute under 3(a), and that also requires
> > distributing the corresponding machine-readable source code.
> >
> > If we don't have the corresponding source, we can't satisfy the
> > GPL, so we cannot distribute (GPLv2 §4, GPLv3 §8).
>
> Your argument, if it can be called that, assumes that the
> requirements of the GPL, or any license, extend "backwards", prior
> to the point it was applied.
Nowhere in Don's argument above does that assumption apply. It only
references conditions that the redistributor must satisfy.
> For photographs, the argument about what constitutes "source" can
> easily become absurd.
Let's endeavour to avoid becoming absurd, then.
> I can easily imagine a photograph where the preferred form for
> modification is the depicted scene itself, rather than its
> depiction. To created a modified photo, the photographer would
> rearrange the scene and make a new photo, not alter an existing one.
> Does this mean a photo of this scene cannot be distributed under the
> GPL (unless the physical scene is also included)?
If that's what the copyright holder insists is their interpretation of
the conditions of the GPL, that interpretation would have to qualify
as making the work non-free under the DFSG. If such an interpretation
were to be ruled binding in a court case, that would make that work
non-free. It would be up to the ftpmasters to decide how likely that
is, and what to do about the package in Debian.
If you ever encounter such a copyright holder who seriously has such
an interpretation, please file an appropriately-detailed bug report on
the Debian package.
As you say, though, it's quite easy to be absurd when discussing how
terms and laws apply; resolving such terms fairly is what judicial
systems are supposed to be for.
Logically or not, conveniently or not, different works under the same
license can potentially differ in whether they are free, and the
knowledge of which is which might not rest in anyone's head until the
question of a specific work is examined in a court of law (and perhaps
not even then). The law, as has been wisely said, is often an ass.
As an aside, it's partially for reason of reducing this ambiguity that
the prevailing wisdom around here is *not* to discuss the freedom of
licenses in the abstract, but of specific works as they are licensed
and distributed.
--
\ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, |
`\ Brain, but if they called them ‘Sad Meals’, kids wouldn't buy |
_o__) them!” —_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney
Reply to: