[cc-licenses] Most important feature: GPL-compatibility
email at greglondon.com
Tue Jan 10 13:02:48 EST 2012
Look, even the source code requirement of GNU-GPL has to stop at physical objects because physical objects are no longer derivatives. This shows up when GNU-GPL is used on code that gets turned into a silicon chip. The license cannot appply to the physical chip because it is no longer a derivative, it is something functional and copyright doesnt extend to functional.
Second of all, if the origunal "source" of a work is some physical object, how do you intend for that source to be carried along with every copy of the work?
Physical objects can be derivatives if the object is artistic rather than functiinal. A statue could be the source of a 3D map file of that statue. Or the statue could be a n output derivative of the map file. How do you plan on having a generic license that can properly distinguish between all the different variations of translations involving physical versus electronic files? And do so without specifying individual media formats?
If someone wants their art to be made part of a software program, and that program is gnu-gpl, then the art should be gnu gpl too.
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
From: drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com>
To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tue, Jan 10, 2012 17:48:46 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Most important feature: GPL-compatibility
On Wednesday 04 January 2012 17:00:41 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 16:22:43 -0500 Anthony wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Francesco Poli
> > <invernomuto at paranoici.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:08:30 -0500 Anthony wrote:
> > >> One of the advantages of CC-BY-SA compared to GPL is that it *doesn't*
> > >> have the sometimes onerous requirement to share source.
> > >
> > > I see that as a bug, rather than a feature.
> > Yes, I realize this.
> > Obviously I think you're wrong.
> I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree, then... :-(
> Anyway, I don't see why you seem to think that a clause allowing a
> CC-by-sa → GPL conversion would be harmful.
> It would just allow a work to be moved from a weaker copyleft to a
> stronger one.
Because I for one want to see BY-SA strengthened in such a way this time that
it will be a stronger copyleft for non-code that the gpl is for non-code.
> Do you see the source-availability requirement as a non-free
> restriction? If you don't, you should have no problems with the
> possibility to strengthen the copyleft that protects a work...
I for one do not see a source requirement as a non-Free requirement and if we
could ever pin down proper "source requirement" wording for non-code, I would
suggest we add it to BY-SA if it can be done in a non-onerous way.
> > > When source (the preferred form of a work for making modifications to
> > > it) is not made available by the author, each recipient finds
> > > himself/herself in a position of (technical) disadvantage with respect
> > > to the author: the author has the possibility to make modifications
> > > that the recipient cannot make as easily.
> > True.
> > And acceptable. Authors do not have a duty to help others make
> > modifications.
> I think the spirit of Free Software is that authors should make life
> for modifiers as easy as possible.
I am cool with that. I certainly want to make it as easy as I can to let
others build on/from my stuff.
> > In fact, taken to its logical conclusion such a
> > requirement becomes absurd. An author is pretty much always going to
> > have an easier time modifying his own software than others.
> Obviously, copyleft does not require authors to actively go around and
> help recipients to modify their works!
> But keeping their preferred form for making modifications secret and
> unavailable is something that is against the spirit of Free Software.
> The example of a book written in LaTeX is especially simple and clear.
> Fixing a minor detail (such as a typo) is extraordinary easy, if you
> have the LaTeX source code: just edit the LaTeX code and recompile!
> Trying to do the same, when all you have is the PDF file generated by
> pdflatex, is extremely unpractical: you may edit the PDF file directly
> (say, with pdfedit), but the result won't be as "clean" as the
> recompiled PDF file. Otherwise, you may reverse engineer a LaTeX code
> that is able to re-generate a PDF file similar to the original, but the
> result won't probably look consistent with the original (unless you are
> a real LaTeX guru and invest a considerable amount of time in the
> Hence, distributing this PDF file under the terms of the CC-by-sa
> license, without making LaTeX source available, is like saying:
> "you *may* modify it, but, good luck, if you *actually* want to do so!"
And if you never had latex yourself in the first place?
> > If we want a less common case, what's the source for a sculpture?
> > What about that die-cast toy that I was talking about earlier?
> We are not talking about material objects.
> We are talking about information that may be processed by computers.
Oh but we may indeed be speaking of material objects. Now do you want to limit
source requirements to digital copies only and digital source materials only?
all the best,
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-licenses