Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 05:06:08 -0600 Andres Guadamuz wrote:

> While I'm sympathetic about your concerns regarding formats, it would be 
> very problematic to implement, as we would have to create definitions of 
> what is considered a source file in a large variety of creative works.

I am convinced that there's no need to include a detailed list of cases
with specified source formats.
On the contrary, it would be very harmful, since the correct answer to
the question "which is the source form?" really depends on how each
work is modified.
Even for computer programs, the source for an executable binary
compiled from C code, is not always and necessarily the C code: in some
cases, the C code was automatically generated from another form (see
for instance, parser generators, which read a grammar description and
automatically generate C code able to parse that grammar)...

The only way to cover all possible cases is a general definition, such
as the one found in the GNU GPL: source code is the preferred form of a
work for making modifications to it. 

> 
> Take for example text. If we declare .mobi and PDF formats undesirable,
> what would be considered source? Would a .doc be acceptable? If not, I 
> envisage people getting annoyed at having formats imposed through 
> licensing, and it might have the opposite effect, namely, that people 
> would prefer not to share.

A copyleft license should *not* impose or forbid any specific format.
It should just define the general concept of source code (as the GNU
GPL does) and require that source is made available.


-- 
 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: pgpCKLgl8zQXl.pgp
Description: PGP signature