"Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, for creative works, the source is hard to be defined by format.
It's the creativity of a work that allows it to be covered by copyright. Non-creative works -- e.g. a plain listing of the digits of a mathematical constant -- are generally deemed un-copyrightable. I don't see what distinction you're making there with "creative works". Are you making some distinction between a software work which happens to be interpreted as a program and a software work which happens to be interpreted in some other way? I don't think that's a relevant distinction. > Not like programs, we can easily know what is machine code and what > is high level language code in most situations. We can only ask the > author of the creative works to release their work honestly because > in most situation we can't distinguish the source and binary if the > author is lying. If the last format he has is wav, then he should > release wav. If the last format he has is mp3, then mp3. Yes. The GPL's definition of "source" is a good one: "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". We have to, as you say, make a judgement call as to whether the author of the work is being truthful about that preferred form. > The same thing also happens on images, like xcf/psd or png/jpg/gif or > whatever. But the author should release the true source he really has. Yes. The form that they prefer for making modifications to the work. -- \ "If you do not trust the source do not use this program." -- | `\ Microsoft Vista security dialogue | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
