Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
On 24/Dec - 11:16, Paul Wise wrote:
> Firstly, -curiosa is the wrong list for your post, see the description here:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-curiosa/
Ooops... I expected "unexpected things", not funny ones, sorry!
I suppose a better place had been "debian-desktop".
Anyway, as the content have slightly changed, you'll find the thread in
debian-legal:
################################################################
* To upload a "background source package", is it mandatory to use
an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for photographies, or a
high-res jpeg format, which is now commonly used by digital
cameras and well-handled by GIMP, is enough? Both formats are
suitable for transformations, but the last one induces
non-lossless compression.
* the "Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-SA) v3.0" license
typed in http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses have no URL given.
So, is it that one:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
* Are cropped and touched-up files "source files"? (see below
lines starting #95)
################################################################
> > I'm beginning to scan a few part of my photos.
>
> Nice!
Thanks!
> > I think some are good enough to be used as background or anything else
> > anyone wants.
> >
> > Currently, published scans are 24/36mm * 900dpi, but I can done higher
> > resolution (up to 2700dpi, I have only an old CoolscanIII) on demand.
> >
> > For these higher resolutions, I plan to abtain a fee, except for Debian
> > Project as it will be a little contribution to.
>
> How do the higher resolutions translate to file sizes?
Highest resolution I can produce is 2700 dpi, 1" / 1.44" =>
3892x2592pts, 24bits depth (30bits depth is unusable to transform
as jpeg), file size is about 30MBytes uncompressed each one,
reduced to ~ 1 MByte when transformed as jpeg.
> > All images at all resolutions are/will be licenced as GPLv3 (inside
> > jpeg comments).
>
> I don't mean to discourage you, but I don't think the GNU GPLv3 is an
> appropriate license for high-resolution photos. The reason is the
> 'source code' or 'preferred form for modification' requirement - most
> folks won't want to have to share both the extra high and low
> resolution versions and so will just violate your license. I'm not
> sure what license is appropriate, but public domain is how many people
> treat online images, or the Creative Commons licenses seem to get more
> respect of their terms for images.
Right. I see that CC Share-alike 3.0 is DFSG compatible
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#head-6c657384a8f1ddd803438e69f176f8d0c479ab9c
I found a "legalcode" at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
=> Is it that one?
> Debian requires 'source code' anyway, so in the Debian source package,
> you should distribute whatever you would use to modify the photos -
> the 'preferred form for modification'., see DFSG #2:
>
> http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
Well: a common format I use is "jpeg", but I expect some guys would prefer
the "tiff" format, which is lossless, but means about 30MB each photo. I
worry the huge amount of disk-space it will consume on a Debian repository.
> Also, some of the photos on your web page look a bit washed-out, is
> that a result of the scanning, or have they been modified from the
> originals?
Mostly No[1], If you mean the Phnom Penh (Cambodia) views, It comes from
the slides themseleves (Kodak Ektachrome...).
To precisely answers your question, scans differs necessarily from
the original device's output, as an image with no gamma correction
will be simply unuseable.
> > Please tell me how to upload high resolution images to Debian, and what
> > images filenames are interresting if so.
>
> Same way as any other package:
[...]
[... binary background package ...]
(the cropped and resized versions for use as desktop backgrounds)
[1]: ^^^^^^^ Can I crop or make touch-up on the high-res
scans, I mean: not "for binary purpose", but as "the
artist's remorse" (also for other resaons, such as do not show
the model face -- her privacy I do not want to disclose -- of
a nude [also, the result for this peculiar shot is far more
better as it is cropped])?
IMHO, the final work the photography is is not only the shot, but
includes these steps.
The shot would be like a first writing of a source file in an RCS,
and the final work a release of this source file.
On the other hand, both forms allows modifications, but the cropped
and retouched one induce alterations (of the shot) which cannot be
reversed.
Netherthe'less, when s.o. write a program, she cuts off the dusts
parts, and re-write constantly the published parts: Imagine what
a code will looks like if all the unwanted parts has been "commented
out" instead of erased. But in the wiped out parts there are certainly
interresting things which could makes the program better when
modifieds.
Q: Regarding strictly DFSG, is "the final work" a "preferred
form for modifications", or do we need "the shot" untouched?
T.H
--
=== The BOFH Excuse Server ===
Your excuse is: suboptimal routing experience
Reply to: