[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Distribution of media content together with GPLv2 code in one package?

* Rudolf Polzer <divVerent@alientrap.org> [100404 12:16]:
> One argument against supplying "full" source code commonly raised by artists,
> is that a 3MB large music piece can depend on several gigabytes of "source
> data", if applying the source requirement recursively.

That is not much different with classical computer programs. When
considering everything source that was somehow involved in creating it,
including all the whole source of every project written by me from which
I copied some lines, including all the specs and notes scanned in from the
little pieces of paper I sometimes wrote them and so on, including all
the core dumps of the editors when writing it and so on
reaches gigabytes and beyond very fast.

The only difference with programs is that there is some form we call
source code and that we usually recognize as source (unless someone did
something arbitrarily evil, like obfuscating it).

> Sorry, but I have NEVER heared any good sounding dynamically generated music,
> or procedurally generated sounds. Sounds often are mixed from hundreds of
> recorded samples from the same event (e.g. throwing a can on the ground).
> Artists then tend to delete the single recordings, and do further improvement
> based on the mixed recording.

With some prototype development processes, a program's source code might
also be a mix of the best parts of different previous prototypes,
mangled a lot to fit together. We still consider the result the full
source code.

What the "preferred form of modifiation" is hard to decide - though it
still is the best definition. But taking it too far never helped.
Otherwise I've seen more than one perl script where the preferred form
of modification would then have been the author and the stuff they must
have smoked when writing this. (Though we usually accept the perl script
unless it is consciously obfuscated).

	Bernhard R. Link

Reply to: