[cc-community] [cc-licenses] Most important feature: GPL-compatibility
osm at inbox.org
Sat Jan 28 16:58:13 EST 2012
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Ben Finney
<bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> The source form is defined by the GPL, such that
> there is always a source form of the work.
In theory. In practice, the source code of a binary might be destroyed.
> There are problems of interpretation, that need to be figured out on a
> case-by-case basis. But the source form of an existing work always
> *exists*, it's just a matter of figuring out what that form is.
Exists? So what if I make a binary and then throw away the source code?
> If you photocopy a poem in a bad photocopier, you have *modified* the
> work – and passed along the source form of the modified work (the
> photocopy itself). The same seems to apply to any copying process that
> is limited by the physical copying process, such as sculpting.
I don't think that applies to a *poem*. The photocopier would have to
be *really bad* to wind up with a different poem. The copy would not
be a derivative. It would be a *verbatim* copy (literally, word for
word). But for visual works, as opposed to literary works, I can see
how this might be the case.
More information about the cc-community