On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:34:55 +0200 Rudolf Polzer wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:59:39AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > In summary, I don't agree that the author's thought is "transparently > > written down in the source code" of a program. > > At the very least, it's *not necessarily* written down. > > Okay. It SHOULD be ;) I think that's a significant difference! ;-) > > But sometimes, the "thought" involved may just be "I found this nice algorithm > in the Knuth". In case of program code, however, nobody would require the TeX > source of The Art Of Computer Programming as source code if an algorithm from > there was used. For music, a similar thing is commonly required, which > personally strikes me as odd [...] I don't think that a (sane) interpretation of the term "source code" for a musical work includes elements or ideas that inspired the work itself. [...] > > > If you want to define source code as "whatever is needed for replicating the > > > output, in a form that can be edited", then spoken voice has no such thing. > > > > I have never defined source code like that. > > Source code is the preferred form for making modifications to the work. > > > > Make no mistake, it's *not* the preferred form for *recreating* the > > work from scratch: it's the preferred form for *making modifications* > > to it. > > What if the only "common" modification of the work would be rewording? How do you typically perform "rewording"? (a) Do you modify the work? (b) Or do you recreate it from scratch (with different wording)? In case (a), a preferred form for making modifications will exist, and that is source code, by definition. In case (b), we are not talking about modification and hence the definition of source code is not relevant... [...] > > If you want to *modify* the recording of spoken voice, some form of > > recording will surely be preferred over other formats. > > That is the source. > > In that case, this would be the finished audio file, as no better form exists. > One might argue about lossy or lossless encoding of the data, but personally > I'd even accept a high-quality ogg file as viable form for editing, and > sometimes when I make my own recordings, I only save that (but then at a high > level, 7 or above). In case I want to do further edits BASED on that recording, > I can just as well use the ogg file. That is a clear indication that you consider the high level Ogg Vorbis file as the preferred form for making modification to the work! Hence, in those cases, the Ogg Vorbis file is source. > > > I cannot be more specific, without discussing the details of a given > > practical case; and I am *not* willing to dive into the details of a > > practical example, since that would drive the discussion far away... > > Assume the recording is spoken words for a tutorial level of a game. > > The typical "editing" performed to that is changing the wording. And there is > no form of it that CAN be used to edit it - if someone who is not able to sound > like the original speaker is going to e.g. add a part to that tutorial level, > he will have to rerecord ALL sounds from scratch. > > Assume we will call THAT "editing", [...] Stop right here! I don't think this can be reasonably called "editing" or "modifying". This is recreating the work from scratch in a different manner. Just like taking a second photograph of a given subject is not "modifying" the photograph, but recreating it from scratch in a different way. Again, the definition of source code talks about modifying the work, not about recreating it from scratch... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpPH8d3wemwF.pgp
Description: PGP signature