On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:44:33 -0400 Richard wrote: > > the GPL explicitly states that it only pertains to source code; > I don't think so. We designed GPL 3 to be usable for all kinds > of works.
i could have worded that better - what is says is that it must be made clear, what qualifies as the complete-corresponding-source for the work - the GPL presumes that the CCS form is obvious for executables; but that is not so obvious for other blobs such as images and audio - the CCS for those, may be in many different forms, including other binaries (eg: GIMP .xcf files); and those formats are often proprietary - so, to use the GPL for those non-functional data blobs, the GPL alone is not sufficient i would like to see the GPL used more for artworks; because none of the popular "free-culture" licenses have the CCS requirement - to have the CCS, is no less important for modifying art/music than for programs - in fact, it is more important for art/music files; because those can not be dis-assembled - it is technically impossible to de-compose the source layers faithfully for lacking the CCS requirement, the free-culture licenses offer less freedom than permissive licenses - unlike source code, artists rarely disclose the CCS for works of free-culture, which makes "free-culture" something of a lie i have made a GPL addendum for that use-case; which i add to any GUI software i write, and recommend to anyone who asks - it would be great if the FSF would endorse and recommend something like it https://wiki.parabola.nu/GPL_Free_Culture_Addendum
