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 (disassembly > output.) It's not enough just to distribute one or the other when > you've used both to create the final work, and I'd assume different > types of modification would require you to use one or the other. > > As far as whose form is the prefered form for modification, unless > they're one and the same form, you really need to include both the > original modifier's (or creator's) prefered form, as well as any > subsequent modifier's prefered form. In the ideal (and commonest) > case, these forms would be the same. But when they're not, I see no > other way to completely satisfy the GPL than to distribute both.[1]
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 certainly can't be the preferred form for modification. That's one of the strengths of the GPL's definition of "source": it permits the source format to change, not locking the work into its original form. > 1: Even if you disagree if the GPL actually requires this, I'd hope > that you'd agree that it's best to include the type of information > that will make subsequent modification feasible, licensing arguments > aside. Within reason, sure. In some cases, no; eg. for videos, where the "source" material may be a lossless encoding, which is often a hundred times the size of the video, well beyond my means to distribute. -- Glenn Maynard
