[cc-community] [cc-licenses] Most important feature: GPL-compatibility

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Sat Jan 28 17:23:07 EST 2012


On Saturday 28 January 2012 15:35:01 Chris High wrote:
> So what in all this is the 'source' for a piece of video.  There are
> usually many pieces of video/audio/images that are composited into a
> finished piece of video that might then be rendered to a more efficient
> format for transmission.  It would be painful to have to make all that
> available because of the size of it and the complexity.  It might be
> desirable, but I suspect the effect would be a very limited amount of
> material made available on such a licence.

Perhaps not if we went back to the gplv2 way of dealing with it for those 
cases at least.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Section 3.b.

"Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give 
any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing 
source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding 
source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a 
medium customarily used for software interchange; or, "

Hire someone at a reasonable per hour cost and let them make the copy. Send it 
in the mail. The person wanting the source would have to pay for the media, 
time, shipping. If they are unwilling, to pay, they don't get the copy.

Would that work?
>
> Chris

all the best,

drew
>
> On 27 January 2012 21:26, Ben Finney 
<bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au>wrote:
> > drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> writes:
> > > On Thursday 26 January 2012 22:56:42 Ben Finney wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:08 AM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > What is the source for these pieces of paper?
> > > >
> > > > There is no “source for the pieces of paper” in the sense we're
> > > > talking about here. A physical object – a piece of paper, a stone
> > > > sculpture – does not have a preferred form for making modifications
> > > > to it, other than the specific object itself.
> > >
> > > But isn't that the whole point? That source cannot be given and a
> > > license requiring that it be given would not work.
> >
> > What license requires the source of a physical object? None that I know
> > of. Copyright restrictions do not apply to physical objects, as has been
> > pointed out many times.
> >
> > Copyright applies to the expressive work. Therefore, copyright licenses
> > only apply to the expressive work. If the license requires that the
> > “preferred form of the work for making modifications to it” be conveyed
> > to the recipient, then that form is what needs to be conveyed to the
> > recipient.
> >
> > > > But copyright doesn't apply to a physical object, it applies to
> > > > whatever expression is embodied in that object. So why do you keep
> > > > asking about source for physical objects?
> > >
> > > Because people seem to think that putting a source requirement into
> > > the next by-sa will work just fine and I see big problems if we try
> > > that. In cases like I am trying to explain in a clearer and clearer
> > > way.
> >
> > You have yet to present any example of a work – *not* a specific
> > physical object, but a work of creative expression to which copyright
> > applies – that does not have a source form that can be convetyed to the
> > recipient.
> >
> > The greater your difficulty in coming up with such an example, the
> > greater should be your skepticism that such an example can be brought.
> >
> > > And further consider the idea of a poem in fancy calligraphy with
> > > handdraw illustrations and a hand drawn border. All on one piece of
> > > paper. One "whole work" possibly made up of various sub works all
> > > existing only on this one piece of paper.
> >
> > Fine. So, again, for the creative expression instantiated in that piece
> > of paper – what copyright calls “the work” – what is the preferred form
> > of the work for making modifications to it?
> >
> > --
> >  \           “If [a technology company] has confidence in their future |
> >  `\      ability to innovate, the importance they place on protecting |
> > _o__)     their past innovations really should decline.” —Gary Barnett |
> > Ben Finney
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > List info and archives at
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community
> >
> > --
> > The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an
> > exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland
> > (SC 038302).




More information about the cc-community mailing list