[cc-community] [cc-licenses] Most important feature: GPL-compatibility
osm at inbox.org
Sat Jan 28 17:52:40 EST 2012
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:43 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> Try passing on object code and non-perfect copies of the source and see where
> it gets you.
As long as the object code was created from the non-perfect copy of
the source, that's perfectly fine.
And if you aren't transferring any object code at all (just the
source), it's also fine.
> It certainly assumes passing on of perfect copies. At least when
> copying the work and not copying modifications of the work.
> So if the assumption had no weight, you should be ok with that little working
> binary broken source idea in the above paragraph. I would not like to take
> that risk myself.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? There are really two different
things here. 1) distributing a non-perfect copy of the source; and 2)
distributing a binary created from the original along with a
non-perfect copy of the source. 1 is fine. 2 is not.
Distributing a non-perfect copy of a poem would be analogous to 1, not
2. For a statue, I think the analogy breaks down.
> Plus there is the word verbatim in the license. Section 4.
> Define verbatim:
> I see that requiring perfect copies.
I'm not sure what thefreedictionary says, but the word "verbatim"
means "word for word", not "perfect". A non-perfect copy of a poem
certainly can be word-for-word. All that is needed is for the words
to be recognizable, and the same.
Of course, the GPL is meant for software, which is a literary work,
not a visual work. The word "verbatim" might very well mean "perfect"
in terms of a visual work (though really the word "verbatim" shouldn't
be used for a non-literary work).
More information about the cc-community