Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround

[Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com>]

Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:

> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes: 
>> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >> More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but
>> >> chooses not to do so.
>> >
>> > If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the
>> > work, we cannot distribute it under the GPL.
>> 
>> If the work as distributed *by the author* lacks something one might
>> call source, a recipient may still redistribute whatever he
>> received.
>
> That's not correct, unless you're in a locality that has some form of
> the First Sale doctrine. Debian doesn't ever distribute under the
> first sale doctrine, and furthermore, Debian modifies everything that
> is distributed (even if just to package it), so it doesn't apply
> either. [And we certainly don't distribute in 1:1 ratio from the
> copies we obtain from original author.]
>
> 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.  The extent to which this is true has to be determined by
real lawyers.

For photographs, the argument about what constitutes "source" can
easily become absurd.  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)?

Similarly, when I write a computer programme, a lot of ideas,
structures, etc. that could be seen as "source" remain as thoughts in
my brain, never to be written down.  Does this make my programmes
non-distributable?

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com