Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam AT benfinney.id.au>]

"Greg London"<email AT greglondon.com> writes:

> Look,  even the source code requirement of GNU-GPL has to stop at
>  physical objects because physical objects are no longer derivatives.

More relevant is that a physical object is not covered by copyright. The
reproducible *expression* is covered by copyright.

So “the source form of a work” is referring to a reproducible
expression, not a physical object. In the current age, it's software
(digital information), not hardware (physical medium).

> Second of all, if the origunal "source" of a work is some physical
> object

It isn't, simply because that's not a form of the work relevant to
copyright.

> 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.

To the extent that we're talking about works covered by copyright, and
not physical objects, I agree.

-- 
 \        “A life spent making mistakes is not only most honorable but |
  `\          more useful than a life spent doing nothing.” —anonymous |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney