On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:01:38AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:17:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
though. The issue is whether the
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:00:52AM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL merely makes it obvious that your problem is hard. Don't do
that, then is not a reasonable answer to the problem of making your
images free. It's not free unless other people can
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:17:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
though. The issue is whether the preferred form for modification is
that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck the Pascal code in cold
storage never to
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:17:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
though. The issue is whether the preferred form for modification is
that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck
Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The preferred form for the Original work is Pascal. The preferred
form for the new (combined/derived) work is C. I think you would need
to distribute both to comply with the GPL.
No. You do not need to distribute source for
Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
though. The issue is whether the preferred form for modification is
that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck the Pascal code in cold
storage never
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The preferred form for the Original work is Pascal. The preferred
form for the new (combined/derived) work is C. I think you would need
to distribute both to comply with the GPL.
No. You
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In essence you're saying that It's impractical to make this
free.
Yes, because neither the tools nor the general workflow of creating
artwork ensure that something worth to consider source stays available.
Whether true or not, that's *all* you're
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 09:47:07PM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
Well, lets make it practical. netPanzer is in both Debian testing and
unstable, it is full of sprites which are based on 3d models, the 3d
models files itself however are not distributed with it and most likly
never will be since
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a) declare that the images as they are are 'enough' to be considered
'prefered form of modification' and leave it as it is
If the 3d models were available, I imagine they'd be the preferred form
for modification.
Since they're not available, through
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:21:30PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
I disagree that you, as a non-copyright holder for my original Pascal
program, can unilaterally declare that distributing obfuscated (i.e.
non-Pascal) works satisfies your responsibilities under the GPL.
For your work, yes, the C
a) declare that the images as they are are 'enough' to be considered
'prefered form of modification' and leave it as it is
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the 3d models were available, I imagine they'd be the preferred form
for modification.
Since they're not available,
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 10:06:45PM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
So deleting the source makes it ok to distribute binary-only?
That's not at all what I said.
Since no one has cared enough about these 3d models -- to the point that
they apparently do not
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:11:19 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
Merely running p2c on the code doesn't make it the preferred form for
modification. I can't take your Pascal program, hack on it (in
Pascal) for a while, compile and release it, and only offer converted
C code, calling it source. It's
* Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] [12/12/04, 16:34:17]:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Frank Loeffler wrote:
If I put an rendered image under GPL, do I have to open the model
which I used to render it as well?
You have to include the prefered form for modification, which, as I
read it, includes the
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:56:16AM +0100, Kai Blin wrote:
I'd highly suggest doing this even if you don't think that the model
is the prefered form for modification, as it will enable anyone who
later works on the work to apply bug fixes to the model and anything
else that was used to
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
If you create a model, and render a PNG with that model, the source
for the PNG is the model. Okay, that's easy; we all probably agree
here.
If I take your PNG, stick it in photoshop, edit it for a while, and
save that to a PNG, what's the source?
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
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:04:12AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
If you create a model, and render a PNG with that model, the source for
the PNG is the model. Okay, that's easy; we all probably agree here.
This assumes that artists can't use software, or equipment, which are
primarily designed
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:04:12AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
If you create a model, and render a PNG with that model, the source for
the PNG is the model. Okay, that's easy; we all probably agree here.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:17:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
This assumes that artists
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
There is also the throuble with textures from texture-cd-collection or
from the web that are only allowed to be redistributed in their
rendered form, ie. redistributing the rendered image under any license
I am free to do,
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
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
In the above case, if the disassembled output becomes my preferred
form for
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 04:27:01PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
So in this case, if you had someone else take a GPLed work, modify it
it, compiled it and give it to you, then you made some trivial
modifications to the binary, and then only distributed the unmodified
binary as source you would
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
Overall I find the GPL quite throublesome and what to include isn't
really clear at all
Your trouble is not with the GPL. Your trouble is with digital image
design, which is complicated and does not currently use very efficient
tools.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
A more likely scenario: you write a program in Pascal, and give it
to me. Pascal is a useless language, so I programmatically convert
it to C (a fairly simple task), and then spend a few weeks improving
the program in C. The Pascal code may be useful for reference, but
it
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:00:56PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
A more likely scenario: you write a program in Pascal, and give it
to me. Pascal is a useless language, so I programmatically convert
it to C (a fairly simple task), and then spend a few weeks improving
the program in C.
Frankly,
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
A more likely scenario: you write a program in Pascal, and give it
to me. Pascal is a useless language, so I programmatically convert
it to C (a fairly simple task), and then spend a few weeks improving
the program in C. The Pascal
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 09:52:13PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
As I understand it, programmatically converting the Pascal code to C does
not introduce any creative element. So as far as copyright is concerned,
the C code is the exact same work as the Pascal code. (Just as the object
or
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL merely makes it obvious that your problem is hard. Don't do
that, then is not a reasonable answer to the problem of making your
images free. It's not free unless other people can modify it to suit
their purposes. Every example you can possibly
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Last not least what if the artist wants to keep his model files
private, ie. a 2d game would only need the rendered model files,
but never the 3d ones in case the 2d images are fine. Is it
possible to use such files at all or do I have to reject
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
though. The issue is whether the preferred form for modification is
that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck the Pascal code in cold
storage never to be touched again, and
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:22:39PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I think you'd agree that just running p2c over pascal code serves as
an obfuscation, and the resulting C isn't source. But after you've
made substantial changes, it probably is the source.
Yes: if my actual preferred form
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:14:56AM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
Well, its a practical problem that some people are facing and that
applies to a whole bunch of free software. Its not necesarry the
unwillingness of the author, might also be that the images simply got
lost over time, that textures
Hi,
the question is easily asked, but as I think harder to answer:
If I put an rendered image under GPL, do I have to open the model which
I used to render it as well?
This might affect projects which are completely under GPL, but include
rendered graphics as well. Such projects are also
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Frank Loeffler wrote:
If I put an rendered image under GPL, do I have to open the model
which I used to render it as well?
You have to include the prefered form for modification, which, as I
read it, includes the model file used to render the image as well.
I'd highly
36 matches
Mail list logo
