On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:50:32 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: > KWWU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > >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.
100 % agreement with MJ's answers. (sorry for quoting all this stuff, but I wanted to make it clear what I agree with...). -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpFAsJf6R12P.pgp
Description: PGP signature
