> > I think you confuse the CCPL clause about "technical measures" (the > Anti-DRM Clause as it is sometimes called) with transparency. It is > clear from my own discussions with the CC mailing lists that this clause > is not equivalent to either a source clause, as in the GPL - you can > publish in PDF only - or certainly a transparency clause, as in the FDL > - you can publish in closed formats, such as MS Word. If you have any > information to the contrary, I would certainly be interested and would > ask you please provide them here. > I was discussing this at length with the folks at CC yesterday and pretty much got the same response - here is an example from Rob Myers: If I wish to remix a song, the original multi-track recording or the original sequencer file and samples are better than a low-resolution Mp3. "Source" here is a structured, editable, high-quality version of the flattened final version. If I wish to remix a digital image, the original multi-layer XCF file or vector SVG file are better than a low-resolution JPEG. Again, structured, high quality source of use to an artist. For text, an editable LaTeX or document file is better than unformatted ASCII or uneditable reader formats for the same reasons. If I have a physical painting, the preparatory sketches will be part of the "source" (in my opinion), and will need providing. I make this argument from my own experience as an artist and my understanding of the benefits of providing source in software (education, re- creatability, derivability). When providing my work online, I include discarded and preparatory work in the archive of images. I believe this is the right thing to do. Transparent (non-drm), editable (structured) and source (re-makeable) may be different concepts. CC only requires the first, FDL probably requires the second. I'm not sure that even the GPL really requires the third for cultural works. --- The fact is the whole thing is under debate because there is no clear way to define a true source and in some cases there is no source for creative projects. Many tenured CCians simply said that many licenses are still working on the topic and the issue is still open. At the end of it all, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just drawing conclusions from reading the clause and discussing it with others who have used it in real-world applications. Really, who knows what it all means. The CC group certainly doesn't, I think that's why they have a vague non-drm clause and not an actual bit dealing with it. > I dispute that the definition of "source" is completely subjective: the > GPL neatly defines it as the "preferred form of the work for making > modifications" which seems clear and obvious enough to me, and certainly > no more subjective than the "technical measures" clause in the CCPL, for > example. > I suppose we can differ here. But consider the comments I wrote to CC: In my thinking, as long as the JPG is available, that is enough. A license can't say a quality source must be .TIFF, .PSD, or .EPS, for example. For one, some of those formats are proprietary and the license would be inadvertently promoting a piece of software and additionally not everyone has access to that software. There are many JPGs that are a higher quality than poorly rendered TIFFs. Whereas, GIF or JPG are universally readable, but can be lower quality. And what if I imbed my images at a high resolution in Quark or InDesign? This is a required source for most printing presses and publishers, but certainly not everyone has those programs (just money-blowing designers like myself), so how would that, in any way, promote intellectual freedom? And what about text? A popular source would be MS Word, but again you are requiring a proprietary piece of software. If it's txt, then what's the difference between .rtf and say copying and pasting off an unlocked PDF? If that is truly the distinction and where CC falls short, I don't see how CC or anyone else can apply those concepts to creative works, apart from simply requiring that 'a' source be available. --- To which the group responded with comments expressing that this is the real problem with defining a source - others even commented that some works don't even have a source. The consensus was that artists try to continually use open/free sources and provide them. The term 'preferable' is what is subjective. In software that's not true - it's pretty easy to tell what is necessary to change a source, but where I am getting confused is how to apply that to creative works. > > I appreciate what you are saying, but, to be blunt, the FRPGC cannot > change and remove it's core principals to accommodate the wishes of one > or two projects. You have taken your path, us ours. As I respect your > wish to license your work as you see fit, however, I would also politely > ask you respect the founding principals of our community and try not to > undermine them, frustrating as they may seem to you. > > Kind regards... I'm sorry, I thought this was open for discussion. I am certainly not trying to undermine anything, I am simply trying to understand and suggest alternatives to a policy and offer support for those alternatives. I'm not frustrated, I'm trying to illustrate that this actually might not be as contrary to the community's founding principals as first thought. I do intend to keep involved in the mailing list because I am interested in being plugged into various aspects of the RP community, if you'd prefer I not discuss this matter further, I'd respectfully oblige, but I still think it is worth it, if only so that I can fully understand and appreciate the true differences between licenses. -- Mark Havenner Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup, They slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe - The Beatles