Michael Stutz wrote:
> Heh. I'm totally open to a better name!
Creative Copyleft License (CCL)
Intellectual Property Copyleft License (IPCL)
hmmm maybe too generic.
> As for why the name: "Design Science" is "the art and science of doing
> more with less to ensure the best possible outcomes for humans in
> Universe";
ah, bucky fuller. Interesting reading, I really should learn more
about him.
(re. source on audio CDs)
> It's not impossible. But you're right that it shouldn't be
> mandatory. And I wonder how much longer audio CDs will be in use.
In use? If everyone in the US stopped buying them today, they would
still exist as legacy technology throughout the world for decades to
come. Last I heard, cassettes were still enormously widespread
throughout the so-called "third world".
> I think you're right about MP3, that it isn't a source form (in most
> cases; again it depends on how it was composed). The source ought to
> be the AIFF or WAV file from which the MP3 was made.
I think in this case, it would be reasonable to satisfy the
distributing-source requirement of the license by offering to
provide audio CDs or data zip disks or whatever the author is able
to provide for a fee.
Thinking about how the GPL works, it occurs to me that you aren't
restricted to recouping your duplication / shipping costs for the
media. You can charge as much as you like. You just can't restrict
further duplication of the media as long as the duplication is done
under the same terms.
So let's say I managed to write some software for which the source
was a few terrabytes of data. This source compiles to a 10 KB
executable. (Obviously this won't happen with real software, but I'm
making an analogy, bear with me here.) Could I release it under the
GPL by saying "I will sell the binary-only distribution for a few
bucks a piece, and you can redistribute as much as you want. I will
sell the full source distribution for $1000 apiece because it costs
me a lot of time and materials to copy it, and you can still
redistribute it as much as you want."
Could you do that under the GPL? Or under your DSL?
In the case of extremely enormous source data, it might be more
practical to have a separate license that says "you can do whatever
you want with the distributed form of this work, but that's all you
get." Remember that with music and images, you CAN still do a lot
more modification with an MP3 or JPEG than a software author can do
with a compiled executable!
> Compare it to source code. What if a programmer has a huge collection
> of macros, and an elaborate programming environment with years of
> settings and preferences and things to make programming easier for
> that programmer. Still nothing but the ASCII text compileable files
> constitute the source -- the final product, the thing that the
> programmer was trying to "say"; you don't have to somehow include all
> of his drafts, notes, sketches, pages of illustrations and flowcharts,
> revisions of the source, encode his knowledge on the subject, his
> programming macros, etc.
OK. So that leaves out the alternate takes and unused tracks. But I
still feel like multitrack data together with some kind of edit list
/ mixing score is more like "source" than a stereo AIFF file is. If
this could cause a legal problem, it needs to be addressed;
otherwise we can forget about it. I just don't know.
> So what about this test for what the source is: as long as anyone else
> (with reasonable equipement such as compilers, libraries, etc) can
> take it and turn it into what you have "said" or communicated in
> object form, as well as take it and make it "say" soemthing else, and
> then put that in object form.
OK, that's reasonable. In this case MP3s and JPEGs would pass, and
the "no-source" license I mentioned above would be unnecessary.
> > But if I record a project in ProTools, are the ProTools files my
> > source code? Anyone who wanted to use them would have to either own
> > ProTools or reverse-engineer its soundfile format and edit
> > lists.
>
> This might be like a software program that's written in a computer
> language which only has one proprietary compiler, written by the
> company who invented the language.
Good analogy! Visual Basic is an example. And if you distribute a VB
program under GPL, you aren't obligated to make sure everyone has VB
available for their platform. So I guess this is not really a
problem.
> > These questions are getting more and more absurd, but the point I am
> > trying to make is that the answers are not obvious, and I am
> > concerned that this could be a problem if you ever needed to take
> > anyone to court over a violation of this license.
>
> And it just might happen to someone. Has it ever happened with
> software? It seems like most software licenses are enforced by
> "embarassment," making the violations public. I don't think anyone's
> gone to court (yet) over an open source violation...
I wonder if / when that will happen? With the recent proliferation
of GPL'ed and otherwise open-source software, it will be very
interesting.
> > Must I put 650 MB on a web or ftp site in order to comply with the
> > license?
>
> Some things are going to have much larger "source" material than
> others, like images and music. It won't be practical to include that
> with the object form. What about making it available by postal mail,
> like as with GNU software? You can charge transportation and media
> costs.
Actually you can charge whatever you like, can't you? But anyone
else can copy your CD. This is where the "not necessarily free as in
beer" idea comes in.
> > (d) A written offer for obtaining the Source stored on a physical
> > medium, at a nominal fee adequate to cover the cost of creating and
> > shipping the physical medium. This option is valid only if the
> > Source is of sufficient size as to place an undue burden on the
> > author(s) or distributor were the Source to be placed in a
> > publically-available location such as a website.
>
> I like this. Something like this probably should be included.
I still wonder how "sufficient size" and "undue burden" would be
interpreted legally....
--
................ paul winkler ..................
slinkP arts: music, sound, illustration, design, etc.
A member of ARMS -----> http://www.reacharms.com
or http://www.mp3.com/arms or http://www.amp3.net/arms
personal page ----> http://www.ulster.net/~abigoo
