KWWU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Indeed. Sadly, CC's anti-TPM language may(*) > >prohibit iSuck owners > >applying TPM themselves, as the copy would violate > >the licence and the > >anti-TPM measure is not limited to distribution. [...] > > Isn't this a case of fair use?
Why would that be so and would it save people in places without US-style Fair Use in law? > >Should we accept as free software a program under a > >licence which does > >not allow licensees to distribute compiled files? > > > >The correct way to fix this is for CC to require > >source code, not prohibit compiled code. > > Think about GPL scripts. The source code is the > compiled code. So you must distribute them in that > form, no compiled ones. I'm thinking about them. Surely I can take a GPL perl script and run it through a compiler, even the undump trick, and distribute that compiled form, as long as I comply with the source supply requirements of the GPL, can't I? > And CC usually applies to images and audios. > For images, the source may be an .xcf (created by > gimp) file. It is usually very large. Gimp can also save equivalent .xcf.bz2, which are not so large. Even if so, largeness of the source relative to the binary isn't usually a major consideration for licenses themselves. It's a practical use problem. > Other users > can merge all layers first and adjust hue/brightness > because it is more easily (to adjust all layers, merge > is the easist way) and finally saved it to an PNG file > (single layer). Do he need to distribute with .xcf > file? Yes, usually, maybe with a cookbook file or some script-fu that does the transformation described, if they got the source material under a Share-Alike licence. > For png file, it can be a modifiable format. Please can someone tell me how to obtain the layers again after they have been merged? I can modify ELF binaries, but that doesn't make them source code. > So for most artists uses CC, they could agree you > distribute that PNG file. They may care their > work is derivable or not. Not the original or > specific format. Most artists do not want to distribute their sources? So be it. Most programmers today seem not to distribute their sources either. It is not a good argument for accepting binaries as free software. > But if it is encrypted then > it is not a modifiable format. And most of us cannot > agree. I'd agree that an encrypted format is probably not a modifiable one. > Same on audio files, singers sing songs and saved > them to a WAV file. DJ can mix some WAV files and > saved them into MP3/OGG file. Should that DJ > distribute the source (wav) files? Probably, yes, if they got them under a Share-Alike licence. > Since MP3/OGG files are > still modifiable, so it can be considered a source. Please can someone tell me how to obtain the wavs again after they have been mixed and encoded? Again, this seems like hex-editing ELF binaries. > But if they are encrypted by WMA with DRM, then it's > not. And most of us cannot agree. Again, I'd agree that a WMA-DRM is probably not a source. > I don't think anti-TPM clause is non-free because > audio/images are not as same as programs. I think that reasoning confuses two unrelated topics. It seems like saying "I like pasta because the sky is blue." > They don't have source codes. Or, some different > formats can be considered as a source (lossy > compressed formats), but some formats cannot (DRM). Above, the XCF is clearly described as the source material of the PNG, and the WAVs as source of the MP3/OGG/WMA, so I think it's obvious that they do have sources. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
