[cc-community] [cc-licenses] Most important feature: GPL-compatibility
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Jan 26 22:40:59 EST 2012
On Thursday 26 January 2012 20:00:21 Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:08 AM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > I will try one more time.
> > Lets consider a photocopy of a hand written poem?
> > And then a photocopy of that copy and so on.
> > In each case only one copy is made.
> > The original poem on paper is clearly marked BY-SA.
> > What is the source for these pieces of paper?
> The pieces of paper are not copyrighted. The poem is. I suppose the
> image is, also. But not the pieces paper.
Of course, but what is the source that you have to give when you pass on the
piece of paper with the poem on it?
> > We are going to have increasing
> > degradation. It seems obvious that each person getting a copy would
> > prefer the instance that his copy was made from to the copy received.
> The source of the poem would be the poem. Presumably the intent of
> the GPL is that you distribute a *machine readable* copy of that poem,
> whenever you convey it. Though I concede that the actual letter of
> the GPL doesn't state that.
Perhaps, but I am speaking with passing on copies or derivatives where a
machine readable instance has never existed.
> Interestingly, I don't think it makes a difference whether you
> initially wrote the poem on a computer, or if you initially wrote it
> on paper.
> If I distribute a copy of PGP Source Code and Internals, and if it
> were licensed under GPL, would I have to include a machine readable
> copy? From a strict by the letter of the GPL reading, I'd say no.
> > Another question is who gets the call as to what is the preferred format
> > for working with the distributed work? Is it always what the person
> > getting the licensed work had to work with?
> That's the tricky part when it comes to situations where the preferred
> version is not obvious. Mostly these are non-code situations, but
> there are also some grey-area situations dealing with code (one that
> comes to mind is computer generated code).
In the spirit of Freedom, I am always wanting to pass on the most "source" I
can, but with the penalties for copyright violations being what they are and
seemingly always getting worse, why put a general source requirement into
by-sa unless the language / concept can be carefully and simply pinned down?
As I say though, I think it may make sense to put in a conditional source
requirement for by-sa content that is properly code.
all the best,
More information about the cc-community