On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:08 PM VanL wrote:
> I am a supporter of the OSI. I think the OSI is important, and that it
> serves an important function. But I can also see that some people are
> already choosing to bypass the OSI for various reasons.
>
This is as it should be.
The OSD is more than
It's very much a thing: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_art and
its various links. I haven't done it, because I'm the furthest thing in
the world from a visual artist: I can visualize anything up to and
including hexagons, filled or outline, in various colors, but that's it.
"Seeing,
John Cowan wrote:
> But suppose I write and send you a program that, when used as a web server,
> transmits the necessary HTML+CSS to display on a standard browser a pattern
> of highly colored blobs that I consider artistic, such that if I painted this
> same pattern of blobs it would clearly
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 5:50 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Two problems in that sentence: First, the artwork is not "resulting." The
> code doesn't create the artwork, it merely facilitates the display of the
> artwork.
>
I don't understand that to be "computer-generated art" in the relevant
sense.
Hi Bradley,
I appreciate your sharing here, especially as I have used the AGPL as both
a comparison point and a foil for the CAL.
A few brief points in response.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:49 PM Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Affero GPL was a huge leap and a big change in copyleft policy. The FSF
>
[Just to license-discuss]
Pam Chestek wrote:
> In the case of computer-generated art, I assume your position is that the
> code and the resulting artwork are two different copyrightable works, even
> though the visual representation is entirely dictated by the code?
Two problems in that
Pamela Chestek wrote:
> My point is this [Van's license] is well beyond the AGPL. For the AGPL, two
> more things have to happen before I have to provide the source code, I have
> to have modified the code and a user has to be able to interact with the
> program. For those who think that the AGPL i
We may have veered to a point where no one is interested as this relates
to the CAL, so I'm moving the discussion to the license-discuss list.
On 8/28/2019 1:18 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> Pam Chestek wrote:
>
> > You've misidentified the copyrighted work. The statutory term is
> "computer progr
