Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On 7 Dec 2004, at 19:17, Gottfried Hofmann wrote:

> Well, in the past most free games used the GPL for both data and 
> program code. Then some nit-pickers came and argued that they did not 
> provide "sources" for their data files. For example no "source" for 
> textures. Well, the source for a texture or an image in general is 
> difficult to define.
> Isn't an image even it's own source? And if not how can you determine 
> what the source is?

This is a good point. There will always be works where the source is 
unclear or absent.

Even in programming, the source and the binary ("the work") may be 
difficult to identify.

If I write a program by hand in assembly (some people still do!), there 
is no source, only a binary. So the source is the binary.

If I write a program in an interpreted scripting language, there is no 
binary, only source. So the binary is the source.

It is possible to recognise these situations, for example, there's a 
Lisp-specific adaptation of the GPL tweaked for Lisp's dynamism that I 
think Franz wrote. But a definition of what source is can only try to 
be as clear as possible in the face of changing expectations and 
practice.

> Let's say someone draws a texture and offers it as a loss-less .tga or 
> .png. Someone else wants the "source". If the artist used layers and 
> stuff then most ppl might agree that the source is the multi-layered 
> image in the native format of the program he used.
> But how can you determine wether he really used layers? What if he did 
> just draw atop and did not use layers? In this case the source file 
> might possibly be the history of changes?

The requirement of the GPL that source be provided is there for 
specific reasons that we can attempt to match to our game artist. 
Having source allows the work to be examined, understood, remade, and 
altered *at the same level of control* as the original author.

So if the original author scribbled into a JPEG, that's the source. If 
they made a folder of Renderman files using some custom Perl scripts, 
rendered each file to a Photoshop layer, combined the layers using some 
custom scripts then saved that as a JPEG, they'll need to get the 
lawyers in but In my opinion they should distribute the Perl scripts.

> If someone renders a scenary with a raytracer and offers a .jpg of the 
> rendered output, ppl surely will agree that the "source" is the 
> scenary in the renderer's native format. But what if I take a picture 
> of my car? The "source" might be the car.

I think the manufacturer of the car might have something to say about 
that. :-)

> But no, I want offer my car for download on the internet :-) The other 
> possibility: The picture is it's own "source". But why are there 
> pictures with source and without source?

As with the examples of sourceless or binaryless programs that I gave, 
I think that an electronic picture of the car is a work where the 
definition of the source and the work are satisfied by the same object 
(the photograph). If the photograph is on film, you might need to 
provide a copy of the negative (or slide) rather than the TIFF.

> Someone mentioned that the source for a .mp3 might be the .wav.

It would be the sequencer files, the recording tracks, or the score.

> But what about movies?

Look at a modern Disney or Pixar DVD. You have the pre-production 
sketches, the storyboards, the rough reel, character designs, rough 
animation, deleted scenes. Add the script and the "bible" and you've 
basically got the sources before you ever get to the models and 
textures.

I know that DVDs are compressed TV-resolution images, and that High 
Definition DVDs still won't be good enough for film usage, but my point 
is that studios are already capable of assembling and distributing this 
material.

> I guess I could provide "sources" for my short films, but only if you 
> give me some terabytes of space on some provider without bandwidth 
> limit...

There's an important point here that IMHO people used to downloading 
software over broadband tend to forget. The GPL was targeted 
essentially at professional software users and authors at a time when 
software was distributed on magnetic tape. Dumping software to tape and 
posting it would have been time consuming and expensive, hence the 
GPL's allowing you to charge a nominal fee for providing source. But in 
spite of this the GPL still did well.

If I am a film studio or a pro-am VJ, I will pay to have a 
multi-terabyte disk filled with a couple of scenes of "Star Wars" and 
shipped to me. Remember, we are discussing freedom, not price. Sources 
for cultural works go deeper than a WAV for an MP3 . I might just want 
the script or the pre-production designs to a film rather than the 
high-definition rushes, for example.

The demand for the ridiculous amounts of storage and bandwidth needed 
to provide movie sources will be music to the ears of commercial 
interests. The Internet Archive and Akamai are drys run for the kind of 
services we can expect to see hosting and distributing sources for 
media in the future.

At the BBC creative archive talk they were discussing the issue of 
distributing such large files. They seemed to think that legal P2P 
would be a good way to go.

> And yes, when I apply certain audio filters to .wavs and then to the 
> same file compressed in .ogg the results sometime differ - but is this 
> the intention for providing .wavs?

Lossless formats are better for sampling. Lossy formats suffer from 
generational loss of quality and compression artefacts.

If I do a DJ set and record it lossless, the work being licensed would 
be the lossless file. If you can't be reasonably expected to provide 
anything more source-like, you shouldn't be required to.

> In my opinion the GPL is the license of choice for people who want 
> "sources" availble - whatever this might be. But for CC a source 
> requirement would surely do more harm than good.

That is definitely a possibility that would have to be considered.

> And the gamers community might have to look for a new license...

The OGL isn't so bad...

Did it just get very cold in here? ;-)

> Wouldn't this mean a lot more CC licenses? Attribution was removed as 
> an option so that there are less licenses to chose from...

IIRC this was a popularity-based choice. If providing source was 
demanded by the market I would expect CC to consider it.

- Rob.