[cc-community] Use cases for cc by-sa compatibility with GPL
ml at creativecommons.org
Wed Jan 4 23:19:47 EST 2012
Forwarding cc-licenses queued messages that don't explicitly address
4.0 to cc-community.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au>
To: cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:46:52 +1100
Subject: Re: Use cases for cc by-sa compatibility with GPL
Francesco Poli <invernomuto at paranoici.org>
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:51:52 -0500 drew Roberts wrote:
> > 'If the work can properly be considered code,
> I think that this sentence is meaningless: everything (that may be
> processed by a computer) is code.
> Hence, if we are speaking about a digitally represented work, we are
> speaking about code.
I would agree if the term is “software”: all digital information is
software (as opposed to the hardware that contains it).
I think by “code”, though, Drew means “program code”.
Drew, would it be fair to re-state that clause as “If the work can
properly be considered a program”?
If so, then I don't understand why that distinction is important. Why
should we support dividing up the freedoms in a work depending on
whether the recipient can use it as a program?
Do recipients of non-program works deserve fewer freedoms?
> > and there exists a "preferred form of the work for making
> > modifications to it"
> Again, this condition is always satisfied.
> Any work that may be processed by a computer, may be modified.
> Among the possible forms, there always exists one that is preferred for
> making modifications.
\ “The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, |
`\ is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is |
_o__) experiment.” —Richard P. Feynman |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20120104/0e1874ff/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the cc-community