On Wed, 2 May 2007 19:19:12 +0200 Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2007-04-28 01:02:01, schrieb Francesco Poli:
> > That is to say, IIUC, among project members only compressed videos
> > are distributed.
>
> Yes, since how do you want to transfer several 100 Mbytes or some
> GBytes? per day and $MEMB
Am 2007-04-28 01:02:01, schrieb Francesco Poli:
> That is to say, IIUC, among project members only compressed videos are
> distributed.
Yes, since how do you want to transfer several 100 Mbytes or some
GBytes? per day and $MEMBER? To work on it the Uncompressed Videos
are not neccesary for testin
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:15:51 +0200 Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Sorry if you get this Message twice, but my Previously messages does
> not appear in the archives and it seems to be lost...
No problem, actually I've never received any other response...
>
> Am 2007-04-11 00:24:19, schrieb Francesco
Sorry if you get this Message twice, but my Previously messages does
not appear in the archives and it seems to be lost...
Am 2007-04-11 00:24:19, schrieb Francesco Poli:
> So, IIUC, ready-to-use videos are created by extracting and compressing
> appropriate sequences of the original uncompressed
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:48:52 +0200 Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2007-04-04 22:30:45, schrieb Francesco Poli:
[...]
> > I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean: are you referring to
> > the game project you're currently contributing to? What's that 30
> > Mbyte quantity? Could you explain a
Am 2007-04-04 22:30:45, schrieb Francesco Poli:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:01:02 +0200 Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
> [...]
> > And currently I create some new weapons but the source of "sunburn"
> > for example is around 70 MBytes including the sound effects plus a
> > real Video of 480 MByte as source
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:01:02 +0200 Michelle Konzack wrote:
[...]
> And currently I create some new weapons but the source of "sunburn"
> for example is around 70 MBytes including the sound effects plus a
> real Video of 480 MByte as source which will be converted to a OGM
> to around 30 MByte.
I'm
Am 2007-03-28 01:00:13, schrieb Francesco Poli:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:18:32 +0800 Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) wrote:
> > To require the author to use some listed formats for image source or
> > audio source is impracticable.
> Indeed! Because what is source for a work, can be a compiled form for
>
Am 2007-03-28 01:18:32, schrieb Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu):
> Lossless and lossy compression format don't mean anything on preferred
> form for modification. Some recorders do record mp3/ogg directly. And
> some audio editors do edit mp3/ogg directly. And many of the authors of
> the audio works don't
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The true distinction is between "aesthetic works", meaning works
> which are valued for themselves (i.e. you sensually appreciate the
> work in one form or another) and "utilitarian works", meaning works
> whose principle value is in how they are used.
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Terry Hancock wrote:
> The true distinction is between "aesthetic works", meaning works
> which are valued for themselves (i.e. you sensually appreciate the
> work in one form or another) and "utilitarian works", meaning works
> whose principle value is in how they are used.
>
Ben Finney wrote:
> 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
Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. The model files, lighting, and animation information. This can be used to
> regenerate the movie.
> 2. The original raw frames of the rendered video.
> 3. The compressed final video stream.
[...]
> So which one(s) should be considered source?
Obviously 1,
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems to me that the "preferred form of modification" seems to
> depend on the desired modification.
Yes. Though I keep advocating the GPL's definition of "source", I
recognise the ambiguity of "preferred" in that definition.
> Since this is Debian, I
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:01:02 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
>
> "Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Exactly, and in some cases an author/maintainer *may* prefer to
> >modify a lossy-compressed form directly.
> >In some other cases, he/she *may* prefer workin
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exactly, and in some cases an author/maintainer *may* prefer to modify a
lossy-compressed form directly.
In some other cases, he/she *may* prefer working on uncompressed data
and recompress afterward...
Yes, I'm real
"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
Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) escribe:
> By ears, there's no difference between mp3 and wav
It depends on the ears, certainly. It also depends on the bitrate
chosen for the MP3 file and also on the audio outboard used (at 128
Kbps there's no difference with a portable player but the difference
becomes o
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:18:32 +0800 Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) wrote:
> Michelle Konzack wrote:
[...]
> > I personaly consider "mp3/mp4" and "ogg" (vorbis, theora, ...) NOT
> > as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".
> >
> > I asume, that there are nore then one person on
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2007-03-11 12:14:09, schrieb Francesco Poli:
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:01:30 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
>>> Even the GPL
>>> terms could be used, so long as it's clear what "the preferred form of
>>> the work for making modifications to it" means for that work.
>> Agreed,
Am 2007-03-11 12:14:09, schrieb Francesco Poli:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:01:30 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> > Even the GPL
> > terms could be used, so long as it's clear what "the preferred form of
> > the work for making modifications to it" means for that work.
>
> Agreed, with the addition that, I
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:22:14 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> Francesco Poli escribe:
> > P.S.: Please do not reply to me, Cc:ing the list, as I didn't asked
> > you to do so. I am a debian-legal subscriber and would rather avoid
> > receiving the same message twice. Reply to the list onl
* Ismael Valladolid Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070313 10:55]:
> In the case of artistic creation it also happens that one can't tell
> where "source" ends. Take as an example a photography. The "source" of
> the photography involves the place where it was taken. But not only,
> it also involves th
Francesco Poli escribe:
> P.S.: Please do not reply to me, Cc:ing the list, as I didn't asked you
> to do so. I am a debian-legal subscriber and would rather avoid
> receiving the same message twice. Reply to the list only (as long as
> you want to send a public response). See
> http://www.debia
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:03:52 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> Francesco Poli escribe:
> > "The preferred form for making modifications" does *not* imply that
> > there's no other form (more or less) suitable for modifying the
> > work. It just means that the source is the *preferred* one..
On 3/13/07, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually I understand that the ftpmasters have approved content licensed
under CC 3.0
I assume you mean that CC-licensed content has been accepted into
main. Could you please give some examples of packages where this is
the case?
Cheers,
--
Ismael Valladolid Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the difference that the programmer needs what he's programming to
> *work* according to a suite of specs. Meanwhile the artist doesn't
> need anything to *work* in any physical way.
>
> So yes programming is more or less creative but creat
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> MJ Ray escribe:
> > Both of the situations are biased - each person will probably think their
> > preferred occupation is more creative or worthwhile. If they thought
> > otherwise, they'd probably be doing the other task. Why is this news
>
MJ Ray escribe:
> Both of the situations are biased - each person will probably think their
> preferred occupation is more creative or worthwhile. If they thought
> otherwise, they'd probably be doing the other task. Why is this news
> to anyone?
With the difference that the programmer needs wha
Francesco Poli escribe:
> "The preferred form for making modifications" does *not* imply that
> there's no other form (more or less) suitable for modifying the work.
> It just means that the source is the *preferred* one...
>
> People may and do modify compiled programs using hex editors and/or
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I've read up and found the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses are
>specifically disallowed by Debian (well GFDL with non-invariant
Actually I understand that the ftpmasters have approved content licensed
under CC 3.0, which is widely considered to be free (one of the
obvi
Please don't send copies of list messages to me via email, I didn't
ask for them and it's annoying to receive them. Please follow
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>.
Ismael Valladolid Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney escribe:
> > Careful. This doesn't distinguish pr
Ismael Valladolid Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skribis:
> Ben Finney escribe:
> > Careful. This doesn't distinguish programs from other intellectual
> > creations; there is a huge amount of artistry in programming.
>
> Sure from a programmer's point of view, but just ask an artist who
> knows someth
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > If the
> > work is inconvenient to distribute free, then we should be telling the
> > author "distributing it free is probably not what you want to do".
>
> I don't think the Debian Project (or debian-legal contributors) should
> promote non-free soft
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Anyway, whenever some form of a work is the preferred one for
> > modifications (i.e.: source form), but, at the same time, is
> > inconvenient to distribute, well, the work is inconvenien
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:50:16 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> Ben Finney escribe:
[...]
> > If, instead, we *define* the "source" of the work so that it's as
> > the GPL defines it, then all these impossible-to-provide
> > environmental factors you cite are not required. All that's required
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:54:33 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
[...]
> In the case of artistic creation it also happens that one can't tell
> where "source" ends. Take as an example a photography. The "source" of
> the photography involves the place where it was taken. But not only,
> it also
Ben Finney escribe:
> Careful. This doesn't distinguish programs from other intellectual
> creations; there is a huge amount of artistry in programming.
Sure from a programmer's point of view, but just ask an artist who
knows something about programming which amount or artistry is there in
each on
Ismael Valladolid Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the case of artistic creation
Careful. This doesn't distinguish programs from other intellectual
creations; there is a huge amount of artistry in programming.
> it also happens that one can't tell where "source" ends.
Which is why the GP
Ken Arromdee escribe:
> This means that there are many content creators who don't want to release
> "source", not because they want to restrict their users, but because they
> don't think the hassle is worth it--it's a much greater hassle for a much
> smaller benefit, than releasing the source of a
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Anyway, whenever some form of a work is the preferred one for
> modifications (i.e.: source form), but, at the same time, is
> inconvenient to distribute, well, the work is inconvenient to distribute
> in a Free manner! This is an unfortunate technical
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:51:50 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > When the uncompressed form is really huge, maybe even the upstream
> > maintainer thinks it's inconvenient to work with. In that case,
> > he/she may prefer to modify the compressed form
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> When the uncompressed form is really huge, maybe even the upstream
> maintainer thinks it's inconvenient to work with. In that case, he/she
> may prefer to modify the compressed form directly: hence, the source
> code is really the compressed form!
Tha
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:06:48 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
[...]
> If you as an author do not want to distribute the source (or more
> importantly, require others who modify your source to do so) then you
> should pick a license like MIT or expat.
Wait, wait!
If someone releases a work under the Exp
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:19:17 -0400 Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
[...]
> Also, it's very possible that stuff no longer exists. I know that when
> I do an audio project (quite infrequently), once I'm satisfied with
> the result, I toss away all the intermediate stuff (audacity project
> files and the
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > In order to release the audio/video recording in a DFSG-free manner,
> > they should release the source as well, as defined in the GNU GPL
> > v2.
> >
> > Wonderful! That is a feature of
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If the original author puts a video under GPL and doesn't release
> > the "source", you can't demand it. He's not bound by the GPL since
> > he can't violate the copyright on his own work, so he has no
> > obligation to give you anything.
> This is the
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> If the original author puts a video under GPL and doesn't release
> the "source", you can't demand it. He's not bound by the GPL since
> he can't violate the copyright on his own work, so he has no
> obligation to give you anything.
This is the same probl
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
>> In order to release the audio/video recording in a DFSG-free manner,
>> they should release the source as well, as defined in the GNU GPL v2.
>>
>> Wonderful! That is a feature of the GPL, not a bug!
>> Recipients should not
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> In order to release the audio/video recording in a DFSG-free manner,
> they should release the source as well, as defined in the GNU GPL v2.
>
> Wonderful! That is a feature of the GPL, not a bug!
> Recipients should not be in a position of disadvantag
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:04:57 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
> >> Those licenses can apply to any software, not just programs. So, if
> >> the software is an audio work or picture, a software license like
> >> GPL
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Those licenses can apply to any software, not just programs. So, if
> > the software is an audio work or picture, a software license like
> > GPL or Expat can apply to it.
>
> Actually, there
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Those licenses can apply to any software, not just programs. So, if
>> the software is an audio work or picture, a software license like GPL
>> or Expat can apply to it.
>
> Actually, there's one big problem. The
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
> Those licenses can apply to any software, not just programs. So, if
> the software is an audio work or picture, a software license like GPL
> or Expat can apply to it.
Actually, there's one big problem. The GPL's "preferred form for modification"
clause.
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:11:10 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 3/11/07, Michael Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > Is the Debian
> > approach to just use a software license like GPL or BSD for creative
> > content?
> >
> > Anyway, what recommendation should I make that will satisfy the
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:01:30 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> "Michael Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Looking further, I could not find any Debian-approved licenses for
> > creative (non-software) works [2], [3]. Is the Debian approach to
> > just use a software license like GPL or BSD for
"Michael Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looking further, I could not find any Debian-approved licenses for
> creative (non-software) works [2], [3]. Is the Debian approach to
> just use a software license like GPL or BSD for creative content?
Those licenses can apply to any software, not
On 3/11/07, Michael Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've read up and found the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses are
specifically disallowed by Debian (well GFDL with non-invariant
sections seems ok, but does that make sense for creative/audio
content?). Looking further, I could not find any
Hello,
On the latest Linux Action Show [1], there was discussion about
freeing their title track and content of their show. I was going to
respond and suggest the right way to do this, but quickly found that
there is no clear answer (especially when it comes to Debian).
I've read up and found t
59 matches
Mail list logo
