Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:
> > 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.
No, that's not my argument at all.[1] I very carefully do not discuss
what the "corresponding source" is. I do this for two reasons: 1) what
it is is entirely orthogonal to whether we must distribute it to
satisfy the GPL 2) a determination of what it is requires a specific
work with information about the license being applied and the method
used to generate the work.
That said, I'll indulge myself in the orthogonality:
> 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)?
If that is what the Corresponding Source is, sure. I think such a
determination would not be sensible. I even drafted language some time
ago to attempt to resolve this abiguity ("prefered form of the work
for modification or the digitally-encodeable transformation thereof").
> 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.
Such ephemeral things do not have much in the way of form, so they're
not the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" in
my opinion. (And presumably, not in yours either.)
Don Armstrong
1: I should note that belittling remarks like "Your argument, if it
can be called that" aren't particularly conducive to polite
conversation or indeed any further consideration of this subthread by
me.
--
No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this
does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.
-- Sir Karl Popper _Logic of Scientific Discovery_
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: