"Anthony W. Youngman" <[email protected]> writes:
> How do you define "work"? :-) That was Ben's point in response to my > post, and I think it's relevant here. I'll address his point here, but > he chooses a recording for his example. Let's say I write and recite a > poem. Is the work the poem, or the recording? There are (at least) two works in your example: The written poem is covered by copyright, and the recording is covered by copyright. Which does the recipient receive under GPL? Whichever one the recipient receives under the GPL is “the work” for the purposes of the GPL, and it is forms of *that* work that must be considered for making modifications to the work. The recipient may, of course, receive both works; in which case, the question needs to be asked for each of them. > My wife's just interrupted me, and I think she's accidentally given me > the "correct" answer. "There is no such thing as 'source' for an > artistic work". Using the definition “the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it”, there is always a source form. In some cases it may be the same form as the direct-use-by-the-computer form, but I maintain that there's always some form of the work that fits that definition. There may be cases where there's no *separate* source form, but in may common cases there most certainly is: The source can be a high-fidelity form of the work, such as SVG for graphics or FLAC for audio. But the lack of such a form doesn't prevent choosing among the forms that do exist, and hence there is always some form that is “the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it”. -- \ “When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. | `\ Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole | _o__) one and asked Him to forgive me.” —Emo Philips | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
