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

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

"Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk> writes:

> How do you define "work"? :-) That was Ben's point in response to my
> post, and I think it's relevant here. I'll address his point here, but
> he chooses a recording for his example. Let's say I write and recite a
> poem. Is the work the poem, or the recording?

There are (at least) two works in your example: The written poem is
covered by copyright, and the recording is covered by copyright. Which
does the recipient receive under GPL?

Whichever one the recipient receives under the GPL is “the work” for
the purposes of the GPL, and it is forms of *that* work that must be
considered for making modifications to the work.

The recipient may, of course, receive both works; in which case, the
question needs to be asked for each of them.

> My wife's just interrupted me, and I think she's accidentally given me
> the "correct" answer. "There is no such thing as 'source' for an
> artistic work".

Using the definition “the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it”, there is always a source form. In some cases it
may be the same form as the direct-use-by-the-computer form, but I
maintain that there's always some form of the work that fits that

There may be cases where there's no *separate* source form, but in may
common cases there most certainly is: The source can be a high-fidelity
form of the work, such as SVG for graphics or FLAC for audio. But the
lack of such a form doesn't prevent choosing among the forms that do
exist, and hence there is always some form that is “the preferred form
of the work for making modifications to it”.

 \     “When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. |
  `\    Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole |
_o__)                   one and asked Him to forgive me.” —Emo Philips |
Ben Finney

Reply to: