[cc-licenses] derivatives and source
invernomuto at paranoici.org
Sun Apr 8 06:36:43 EDT 2012
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 12:29:17 +0200 Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:23:18 -0400
> "P. J. McDermott" <pjm at nac.net> wrote:
> > My rule of thumb regarding computer programs is that whatever one edits
> > is what one should release. For a program written in assembly, one
> > would release the assembly source code. For a program written in C, one
> > would release the C source code, not assembly source generated by a
> > compiler. And to comply with the GNU GPL when distributing a work that
> > is difficult to build and/or install, one could simply describe what
> > he/she has done while using it.
> > Though I agree that the line is much more fuzzy regarding other works, I
> > feel that a similar rule could be applied. Whatever one edits – be it
> > an image source file, a generated PNG image, video project files, a
> > rendered video, etc. – is what one should release.
> Indeed, and AFAIR the GPLv2 defines source code as “the preferred form
> for modification”. Which is a nice generic definition which can be
> adequately interpreted according to the field's best practices.
Agreed: the definition of source code proposed in the GNU GPL is
general and flexible enough to cover all the above-described examples
I think that this definition *is* the way to effectively codify a
source-availability requirement into a copyright license.
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20120408/29b66c42/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the cc-licenses