Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
t...@thomas-harding.name wrote: Anyway, as the content have slightly changed, you'll find the thread in debian-legal: You should not trust everything you read on debian-legal. * To upload a background source package, is it mandatory to use an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for photographies, or a E.g. this is bullshit. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
Le lundi 29 décembre 2008 à 13:52 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit : * To upload a background source package, is it mandatory to use an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for photographies, or a E.g. this is bullshit. More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it will be acceptable for Debian. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote: More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it will be acceptable for Debian. Say what? If you GPL a program and don't provide source code, Debian doesn't even have the right to distribute it, since they have to distribute it with the source code and they don't have that. The fact that you are the copyright owner means that your sending it *to* Debian is legal, but that doesn't grant Debian permission to distribute it any further. Why would Debian accept something it's not allowed to distribute? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net writes: On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote: More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it will be acceptable for Debian. Say what? If you GPL a program and don't provide source code, Debian doesn't even have the right to distribute it, since they have to distribute it with the source code and they don't have that. The fact that you are the copyright owner means that your sending it *to* Debian is legal, but that doesn't grant Debian permission to distribute it any further. More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but chooses not to do so. -- Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:20:02 +0100 Thomas Harding wrote: [...] * To upload a background source package, is it mandatory to use an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for photographies, or a high-res jpeg format, which is now commonly used by digital cameras and well-handled by GIMP, is enough? Both formats are suitable for transformations, but the last one induces non-lossless compression. IMO, it is mandatory to include source code. The best definition of source I am aware of is the one found in the GNU GPL text: basically, the preferred form for making modifications to the work. Which is the preferred form? It depends on the work being considered: you have to ask yourself which is the form I would use to make modifications to the work? Hint: if you are keeping some form for future modifications, but you are distributing something else as source, maybe you're not providing the actual source... * the Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-SA) v3.0 license typed in http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses have no URL given. So, is it that one: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode I personally recommend against CC licenses, because I think they do not meet the DFSG: see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00076.html and the URLs listed there, for further details. However, this is my own opinion and that many other people (including FTP-masters, it seems!) disagree with me... * Are cropped and touched-up files source files? (see below lines starting #95) As always, if they are the preferred form for making further modifications, then yes, they are source code. On the other hand, if you would restart from some prior form in order to make modifications, then no, they are not source. [...] On 24/Dec - 11:16, Paul Wise wrote: [...] I don't mean to discourage you, but I don't think the GNU GPLv3 is an appropriate license for high-resolution photos. The reason is the 'source code' or 'preferred form for modification' requirement - most folks won't want to have to share both the extra high and low resolution versions and so will just violate your license. I'm not sure what license is appropriate, but public domain is how many people treat online images, or the Creative Commons licenses seem to get more respect of their terms for images. So guaranteeing that people can get source is a bug, rather than a feature? I cannot agree with you here... I am convinced that the GNU GPL is suitable for many kinds of works (not only executable programs), and that making source available is an essential part of distributing Free Works. [...] Well: a common format I use is jpeg, but I expect some guys would prefer the tiff format, which is lossless, but means about 30MB each photo. I worry the huge amount of disk-space it will consume on a Debian repository. You are worried that the preferred form could be huge. If its size is a serious practical inconvenience, maybe that form is not really the preferred one... N.B.: All the above consists of my own opinions. IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP, as usual. -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND nano-documents may lead you to my website... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpRcNjyeoTRV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but chooses not to do so. If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the work, we cannot distribute it under the GPL. [For non-copyleft works, however, your statement is correct.] Don Armstrong -- If you find it impossible to believe that the universe didn't have a creator, why don't you find it impossible that your creator didn't have one either? -- Anonymous Coward http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167556cid=13970629 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it will be acceptable for Debian. Even more precisely: The work is only redistributable under the GPL if you also make available “the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it” (GPLv3 §1). This is a good definition of “source code” that makes it easy for a copyright holder to apply the GPL also to non-program works. -- \ “Be careless in your dress if you must, but keep a tidy soul.” | `\ —Mark Twain, _Following the Equator_ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but chooses not to do so. If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the work, we cannot distribute it under the GPL. If the work as distributed *by the author* lacks something one might call source, a recipient may still redistribute whatever he received. When *redistributing* a work, possibly modified, received under the terms of the GPL, you may of course not omit any parts that would be considered source for any part of what you do distribute. [For non-copyleft works, however, your statement is correct.] Yes, obviously. -- Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but chooses not to do so. If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the work, we cannot distribute it under the GPL. If the work as distributed *by the author* lacks something one might call source, a recipient may still redistribute whatever he received. That's not correct, unless you're in a locality that has some form of the First Sale doctrine. Debian doesn't ever distribute under the first sale doctrine, and furthermore, Debian modifies everything that is distributed (even if just to package it), so it doesn't apply either. [And we certainly don't distribute in 1:1 ratio from the copies we obtain from original author.] Under GPL v3, when we convey a work in a non-source form, we must satisfy all of 6d. That requires making the Corresponding Source available, which we cannot. Under GPL v2, we distribute under 3(a), and that also requires distributing the corresponding machine-readable source code. If we don't have the corresponding source, we can't satisfy the GPL, so we cannot distribute (GPLv2 §4, GPLv3 §8). Don Armstrong -- Information wants to be free to kill again. -- Red Robot http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1372 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but chooses not to do so. If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the work, we cannot distribute it under the GPL. If the work as distributed *by the author* lacks something one might call source, a recipient may still redistribute whatever he received. That's not correct, unless you're in a locality that has some form of the First Sale doctrine. Debian doesn't ever distribute under the first sale doctrine, and furthermore, Debian modifies everything that is distributed (even if just to package it), so it doesn't apply either. [And we certainly don't distribute in 1:1 ratio from the copies we obtain from original author.] Under GPL v3, when we convey a work in a non-source form, we must satisfy all of 6d. That requires making the Corresponding Source available, which we cannot. Under GPL v2, we distribute under 3(a), and that also requires distributing the corresponding machine-readable source code. If we don't have the corresponding source, we can't satisfy the GPL, so we cannot distribute (GPLv2 §4, GPLv3 §8). Your argument, if it can be called that, assumes that the requirements of the GPL, or any license, extend backwards, prior to the point it was applied. The extent to which this is true has to be determined by real lawyers. For photographs, the argument about what constitutes source can easily become absurd. I can easily imagine a photograph where the preferred form for modification is the depicted scene itself, rather than its depiction. To created a modified photo, the photographer would rearrange the scene and make a new photo, not alter an existing one. Does this mean a photo of this scene cannot be distributed under the GPL (unless the physical scene is also included)? Similarly, when I write a computer programme, a lot of ideas, structures, etc. that could be seen as source remain as thoughts in my brain, never to be written down. Does this make my programmes non-distributable? -- Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote: Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: If we don't have the corresponding source, we can't satisfy the GPL, so we cannot distribute (GPLv2 §4, GPLv3 §8). Your argument, if it can be called that, assumes that the requirements of the GPL, or any license, extend backwards, prior to the point it was applied. No, that's not my argument at all.[1] I very carefully do not discuss what the corresponding source is. I do this for two reasons: 1) what it is is entirely orthogonal to whether we must distribute it to satisfy the GPL 2) a determination of what it is requires a specific work with information about the license being applied and the method used to generate the work. That said, I'll indulge myself in the orthogonality: For photographs, the argument about what constitutes source can easily become absurd. I can easily imagine a photograph where the preferred form for modification is the depicted scene itself, rather than its depiction. To created a modified photo, the photographer would rearrange the scene and make a new photo, not alter an existing one. Does this mean a photo of this scene cannot be distributed under the GPL (unless the physical scene is also included)? If that is what the Corresponding Source is, sure. I think such a determination would not be sensible. I even drafted language some time ago to attempt to resolve this abiguity (prefered form of the work for modification or the digitally-encodeable transformation thereof). Similarly, when I write a computer programme, a lot of ideas, structures, etc. that could be seen as source remain as thoughts in my brain, never to be written down. Such ephemeral things do not have much in the way of form, so they're not the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it in my opinion. (And presumably, not in yours either.) Don Armstrong 1: I should note that belittling remarks like Your argument, if it can be called that aren't particularly conducive to polite conversation or indeed any further consideration of this subthread by me. -- No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white. -- Sir Karl Popper _Logic of Scientific Discovery_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround
Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com writes: Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: Under GPL v3, when we convey a work in a non-source form, we must satisfy all of 6d. That requires making the Corresponding Source available, which we cannot. Under GPL v2, we distribute under 3(a), and that also requires distributing the corresponding machine-readable source code. If we don't have the corresponding source, we can't satisfy the GPL, so we cannot distribute (GPLv2 §4, GPLv3 §8). Your argument, if it can be called that, assumes that the requirements of the GPL, or any license, extend backwards, prior to the point it was applied. Nowhere in Don's argument above does that assumption apply. It only references conditions that the redistributor must satisfy. For photographs, the argument about what constitutes source can easily become absurd. Let's endeavour to avoid becoming absurd, then. I can easily imagine a photograph where the preferred form for modification is the depicted scene itself, rather than its depiction. To created a modified photo, the photographer would rearrange the scene and make a new photo, not alter an existing one. Does this mean a photo of this scene cannot be distributed under the GPL (unless the physical scene is also included)? If that's what the copyright holder insists is their interpretation of the conditions of the GPL, that interpretation would have to qualify as making the work non-free under the DFSG. If such an interpretation were to be ruled binding in a court case, that would make that work non-free. It would be up to the ftpmasters to decide how likely that is, and what to do about the package in Debian. If you ever encounter such a copyright holder who seriously has such an interpretation, please file an appropriately-detailed bug report on the Debian package. As you say, though, it's quite easy to be absurd when discussing how terms and laws apply; resolving such terms fairly is what judicial systems are supposed to be for. Logically or not, conveniently or not, different works under the same license can potentially differ in whether they are free, and the knowledge of which is which might not rest in anyone's head until the question of a specific work is examined in a court of law (and perhaps not even then). The law, as has been wisely said, is often an ass. As an aside, it's partially for reason of reducing this ambiguity that the prevailing wisdom around here is *not* to discuss the freedom of licenses in the abstract, but of specific works as they are licensed and distributed. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, | `\ Brain, but if they called them ‘Sad Meals’, kids wouldn't buy | _o__)them!” —_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
