On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:58:17 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Say something like a graphical image of a button that is basically >> text + a few filters to add a 3d effect and such. If I want to >> change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull way, so that >> it fits together with other buttons that ues the same style, I need >> to know the filters and parameters that where used in the process, >> however often that is something that not even the orignal author >> might remember after a few days. Won't the resulting work be >> undistributable under GPL due to the lack of source?
> No. What you have currently is (from what you have explained) the > prefered form for modification. This is no different from code that is > badly documented where the author has a stroke and is no longer able > to explain his code. The prefered form for modification is still > extant, and is being distributed. I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I only have the 'binary', I don't have any 'source' information that would allow me to modify the resulting work in any meaningfull way. I consider this more similar to somebody who is writing a programm in C, then compiling it and then losing the source code (diskcrash, rm, whatever). To my understanding the resulting binary is undistributable under the GPL. > It depends on the specific case. In my opinion, almost all of those > media types actually have a prefered form for modification. Depends, I have hardly seen any .xcf, .blend or source formats for .ogg/.mp3 in the wild, in this context basically all games fail to fullfill the GPL.
