2009/5/7 Brian Granger <ellisonbg....@gmail.com>: > >>> I disagree. A jpeg or .doc file is not source code in any sense of >>> the word, thus the GPL is completely irrelevant (I think we agree on >>> that). >> >> That simply isn't so. To quote the GPL: >> "This License applies to any program or other work ..." >> "The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, ..." > > Are you arguing that jpeg's produced by GIMP are all GPL'd? > > I agree that it is definitely possible to release "non-programs", such > as JPEGs, under the GPL. But, in the case of GIMP producing a JPEG, > most of us don't consider the JPEG a derived work of GIMP. Why not? > > * The JPEG stands on its own and can be "used" independently of GIMP. > * The part of GIMP that is licensed under the GPL is its source code. > I am not sure, but I think it is C++. Derived works of GIMP must > therefore also be C++ programs or a program in another language that > is able of directly linking to and calling C++. > > Sure someone brought up the issue of the odd language for which > bitmaps are source code. In that case, a bitmap can absolutely be a > derived work. But, it doesn't follow that all bitmaps are derived > work of all programming languages.
This reminds me of the case of the (large) prime number which in binary was a fully functioning linux progam which played DVDs, complete with CSS decoding. As it was a large enough prime it was posted on the large primes web page. Perhaps that prime now has to be GPL'd... John > > Cheers, > > Brian > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
