Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:59:33 -0600 Gunnar Wolf wrote:

[...]
> Ok. What would you define as the source for the "Metropolis" movie? I
> don't think it has a source. It is an intellectual/artistic work set
> in long-term preservable media, it can be reproduced and archived. But
> even having the script and the measures for all of the artwork used on
> the set, no matter what, you will not be able to recreate it. 
> 
> Same thing for Picasso's Guernica — Would we need yet another
> slaughtered village to lead to its creation? Thankfully no. Does
> slaughting a village lead to the creation of a Guernica? Clearly
> no. What is the source for the painting? The painting has no source:
> The painting is an expression, and that's what it is.

I think you are missing the point of the definition of source (the one
found in the GPL): the source is the preferred form for making
*modifications* to the work, not the preferred for *re-creating* the
work from scratch.

In your Metropolis movie example, having the complete script would be
nice, but not necessarily an essential part of source.
The source is the preferred form for making *modifications* to the
movie, not for *re-creating* it with the actors (some of which are no
longer living, I suppose) and all the rest.


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpDq8ZZuDG2O.pgp
Description: PGP signature