On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:01:38AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:17:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >> The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
> >> though. The issue is whether
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:09:25AM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> The case is different here, as with most games, the 3d models are
> created by a artists who then sends the rendered images over to some
> programmer/maintainer who integrates them into the game, the
> programmer/maintainer almost never
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:11:19 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Merely running p2c on the code doesn't make it the preferred form for
> modification. I can't take your Pascal program, hack on it (in
> Pascal) for a while, compile and release it, and only offer converted
> C code, calling it "source".
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 10:06:45PM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
>> So deleting the source makes it ok to distribute binary-only?
>
> That's not at all what I said.
>
> Since no one has cared enough about these 3d models -- to the point that
> they apparently
> >> a) declare that the images as they are are 'enough' to be considered
> >>'prefered form of modification' and leave it as it is
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If the 3d models were available, I imagine they'd be the preferred form
> > for modification.
> >
> > Since they're
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:21:30PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> I disagree that you, as a non-copyright holder for my original Pascal
> program, can unilaterally declare that distributing obfuscated (i.e.
> non-Pascal) works satisfies your responsibilities under the GPL.
>
> For your work, yes, the C
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> a) declare that the images as they are are 'enough' to be considered
>>'prefered form of modification' and leave it as it is
>
> If the 3d models were available, I imagine they'd be the preferred form
> for modification.
>
> Since they're not availabl
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 09:47:07PM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> Well, lets make it practical. netPanzer is in both Debian testing and
> unstable, it is full of sprites which are based on 3d models, the 3d
> models files itself however are not distributed with it and most likly
> never will be since
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In essence you're saying that "It's impractical to make this
> free".
Yes, because neither the tools nor the general workflow of creating
artwork ensure that something worth to consider source stays available.
> Whether true or not, that's *all* you'
"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
>> Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The preferred form for the Original work is Pascal. The preferred
>>> form for the new (combined/derived) work is C. I think you would need
>>> to distribute both to comply with the
Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
>> though. The issue is whether the "preferred form for modification" is
>> that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck the Pascal code in cold
>> s
Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
> Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The preferred form for the Original work is Pascal. The preferred
>> form for the new (combined/derived) work is C. I think you would need
>> to distribute both to comply with the GPL.
>
> No. You do not need to distribute so
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:17:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
>> though. The issue is whether the "preferred form for modification" is
>> that C code, now that I've converted
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:17:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
> though. The issue is whether the "preferred form for modification" is
> that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck the Pascal code in cold
> storage never
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:00:52AM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The GPL merely makes it obvious that your problem is hard. "Don't do
> > that, then" is not a reasonable answer to the problem of making your
> > images free. It's not free unless other
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:14:56AM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> Well, its a practical problem that some people are facing and that
> applies to a whole bunch of free software. Its not necesarry the
> unwillingness of the author, might also be that the images simply got
> lost over time, that texture
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:22:39PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I think you'd agree that just running p2c over pascal code serves as
> an obfuscation, and the resulting C isn't source. But after you've
> made substantial changes, it probably is the source.
Yes: if my actual "preferred for
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
> though. The issue is whether the "preferred form for modification" is
> that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck the Pascal code in cold
> storage never to be touched again
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Last not least what if the artist wants to keep his model files
>> private, ie. a 2d game would only need the rendered model files,
>> but never the 3d ones in case the 2d images are fine. Is it
>> possible to use such files at all or do I have to reje
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The GPL merely makes it obvious that your problem is hard. "Don't do
> that, then" is not a reasonable answer to the problem of making your
> images free. It's not free unless other people can modify it to suit
> their purposes. Every example you can p
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:04:42AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:00:56PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > A more likely scenario: you write a program in Pascal, and give it
> > to me. Pascal is a useless language, so I programmatically convert
> > it to C (a fairly simp
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 09:52:13PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> As I understand it, programmatically converting the Pascal code to C does
> not introduce any creative element. So as far as copyright is concerned,
> the C code is the exact same work as the Pascal code. (Just as the object
> or exec
Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> A more likely scenario: you write a program in Pascal, and give it
>> to me. Pascal is a useless language, so I programmatically convert
>> it to C (a fairly simple task), and then spend a few weeks improving
>> the program in C. Th
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:00:56PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> A more likely scenario: you write a program in Pascal, and give it
> to me. Pascal is a useless language, so I programmatically convert
> it to C (a fairly simple task), and then spend a few weeks improving
> the program in C.
Frank
Glenn Maynard wrote:
A more likely scenario: you write a program in Pascal, and give it
to me. Pascal is a useless language, so I programmatically convert
it to C (a fairly simple task), and then spend a few weeks improving
the program in C. The Pascal code may be useful for reference, but
it i
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> Overall I find the GPL quite throublesome and what to include isn't
> really clear at all
Your trouble is not with the GPL. Your trouble is with digital image
design, which is complicated and does not currently use very efficient
tools
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 04:27:01PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> So in this case, if you had someone else take a GPLed work, modify it
> it, compiled it and give it to you, then you made some trivial
> modifications to the binary, and then only distributed the unmodified
> binary as source you woul
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:10:30AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Model -> C source
> > PNG#1 -> machine code
> > PSD -> disassembly output
> > PNG#2 -> assembled dissassembly
>
> In the above case, if the disassembled output becomes my preferred
> fo
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> There is also the throuble with textures from texture-cd-collection or
> from the web that are only allowed to be redistributed in their
> rendered form, ie. redistributing the rendered image under any license
> I am free to do, redistr
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the above case, if the disassembled output becomes my preferred
> form for modification--if it's what I actually use to modify the
> program--I don't have to distribute the C source. It's not useful
> for modifying the binary I'm distributing, so it c
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:04:12AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > If you create a model, and render a PNG with that model, the source for
> > the PNG is the model. Okay, that's easy; we all probably agree here.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:17:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This assumes that ar
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:04:12AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> If you create a model, and render a PNG with that model, the source for
> the PNG is the model. Okay, that's easy; we all probably agree here.
This assumes that artists can't use software, or equipment, which are
primarily designed
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:10:30AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Model -> C source
> PNG#1 -> machine code
> PSD -> disassembly output
> PNG#2 -> assembled dissassembly
>
> It seems clear, to me at least, that the prefered form for
> modification is both the model (C source) and the PSD (disasse
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> If you create a model, and render a PNG with that model, the source
> for the PNG is the model. Okay, that's easy; we all probably agree
> here.
>
> If I take your PNG, stick it in photoshop, edit it for a while, and
> save that to a PNG, what's the sou
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:56:16AM +0100, Kai Blin wrote:
> > I'd highly suggest doing this even if you don't think that the model
> > is the prefered form for modification, as it will enable anyone who
> > later works on the work to apply bug fixes to the model and anything
> > else that was used
* Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12/12/04, 16:34:17]:
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Frank Loeffler wrote:
> > If I put an rendered image under GPL, do I have to open the model
> > which I used to render it as well?
>
> You have to include the prefered form for modification, which, as I
> read it, inc
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Frank Loeffler wrote:
> If I put an rendered image under GPL, do I have to open the model
> which I used to render it as well?
You have to include the prefered form for modification, which, as I
read it, includes the model file used to render the image as well.
I'd highly sug
37 matches
Mail list logo
