GPL

[Case]

Here's my Open Arena GPL question. How can a picture be released under the GPL? or textures, or anything really that isn't code. I'm not fully understanding how a texture can respect the users 4 freedoms.
    *  The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
    * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source       
       code is a precondition for this.

Please help, this has been confusing me. Any good links can help too, I looked around on fsf and gnu's site but no avail. I also did a quick google search.

[kit89]

GPL is generally used as a Source Code license and is more geared towards that. However the basis of the GPL & the actual rules can still be followed.

The GPL refers to the content being licensed as software, software does not necessarily mean a computer program. Therefore media content which is a form of software can still be licensed  under the GPL.

[Case]

what constitutes the source code for a picture?

[Cacatoes]

My opinion :

short answer 1 : nothing
short answer 2 : it's up to you
longer answer : some image formats are editable, thanks to layers or other ways depending on the format

Source is a concept which only has sense when during distribution you lose some information which was used to create the result.
If you've not lost these informations, then you've given the source (which is also the result).

The main problem is "what information", it's quite arbitrary and defined per case (yes maybe it was you ).
For compiled languages it seems easy to define it ; but not that easy, you can obfuscate code and make it unusable while delivering the source. So this only moves the problem.
The aim of licenses such as GPL is to specify and clarify enough what should be done until you can't really "move again the problem", so that it fulfills the freedoms you listed.

[damocles]

It can depend on what it is and how it's done -- compare the need for source for pixel icons / smilies, versus a full-blown wallpaper (for example), versus textures or skins... also whether the image itself is being modified, or is to be used as part of another work.

There may not be any source considered at all, such as if they are icons or a theme -- they are the work in question.  If not, the actual image(s) could be considered the source, especially if done in one pass (or drawn by hand and then scanned).  A vector format like SVG helps here.

OTOH, it may also extend to having the Photoshop or GIMP projects complete with layers, as is the case with the textures and skins.  (Again, the textures / skins themselves could be the source, as they can be altered as needed, or used in the production of something else.)

Interpretation based on what is being licensed is also the thing to go for, unfortunately.  (You may not care much for the source code to 2-color pixel smilies (no offense to those folks), but this is something else for skins or wallpaper.)  Also, the use of Free software / tools may not be possible in all situations, so as such it is not expressly required -- but of course it always helps.


Something doesn't seem right about the above, but maybe someone will correct me.  Anyway:

More stark raving madness:

• Linux.com :: The trouble with artwork and free software licenses: (includes informative and conflicting comments, and maybe even the article itself is supposed to be wrong in some counts)
• Art licensing guide - FreeGameDevWiki
• I thought I had a third one, but forums at places like TuxFamily are others.
  
  • (Some of the major game development sites may be less suitable.)
• Wait, I did have a third one -- the top of Template talk:GPL, from 2004, is a good example scenario / summary.

Just putting a GPL or CC on it without fully (as in, really, really) understanding what it does or what it will do, can be a problem, even with good intentions.  Also, completely different when it comes to sound and music and text and [other] graphics and stuff...

[Case]

Thanks for the links, which is what I was looking for. But the links provided restate my original question of what constitutes the source code of a picture. Source is readable in a text editor, while a picture looks to me to be a binary. I've seen a lot of software release its media under the GPL, but I'm not sure it would hold up in court at all. It seems to me that when ppl release media under the GPL they really want the "spirit" of the GPL rather than the actual license. It also seems that freedom 0 and freedom 1 can't apply to media as well. IDK this has just been something that I can't wrap my head around.

[damocles]

Thanks for the links, which is what I was looking for. But the links provided restate my original question of what constitutes the source code of a picture. Source is readable in a text editor, while a picture looks to me to be a binary.

At least as far as images go, the source may be the picture itself, or it may be in a format that to some extent breaks down individual steps (vector graphics, layers, undo history), though this is not always possible.  They are not text, but it can still be read and understood (to some extent) by a human (as opposed to this in the case of sound -- what is this supposed to sound like?).

Whether one form of source is more appropriate for a certain project... depends on the project.

This was in my previous post -- sorry if I wasn't clear enough with the above.

I've seen a lot of software release its media under the GPL, but I'm not sure it would hold up in court at all. It seems to me that when ppl release media under the GPL they really want the "spirit" of the GPL rather than the actual license.

You can take a copyrighted or non-Free work and put it out as GPL (or CC), but this does not automatically make it Free or free to use (like models or textures from a retail game, or using clips from a song).  You can also take GPL media and put it in your project, but not give credit or provide sources or modifications (like using OA's media, but not providing the SVN contents, or not saying it's from OA, or even calling it your own work).

In some cases, it may be meant for the media or created work to be freely used and not owned by anyone (instead of truly free), even though some of its components may not actually fall under that category (or could be grey areas themselves).

This is also something like being just open-source but not free, and the other way around.

This has been a problem with some projects.  I don't know any examples in court, but there are some examples in the Debian repos or any good free media or game dev site or forum.

It also seems that freedom 0 and freedom 1 can't apply to media as well. IDK this has just been something that I can't wrap my head around.

Even if you do have source, knowledge and experience in art and image production, editing, etc. is necessary in most cases.  If it's in a form that doesn't necessarily have source per se (such as (I'm making this up) images in an icon pack or theme, where the intent is that you can use them freely), you'd still need to know what you're doing in order to figure it out.

Someone has to know about coding, the conventions of coding, and how to code... then will they understand what to do with a program's source code (or composition or audio engineering in the case of music and sound).  (OTOH, maybe someone wants to steal a website design, but instead of ripping out HTML and images, or getting a copy of the software, they use a "website downloader" they found in their MSN results.)

[Case]

under this logic though a jpg(or gif) could be considered GPLed which I dont think is the case your trying to make.

[Case]

that image you linked to in your last post can't be GPL because of its proprietary format and the patents that restrict the actual use of it btw.
[edit] okay i'm now unsure of the jpeg patent after looking it up on wikipedia. Is it or isn't it restricted? I remember when I first got into GNU stuff it was restrictive but it seems it might not be. Patent pending I guess. But never the less there are restricted image formats out there.[/edit]

[andrewj]

okay i'm now unsure of the jpeg patent after looking it up on wikipedia. Is it or isn't it restricted?

As far as I know there is no patent issues with the standard JPEG image format the everyone uses.

There is an option to use arithmetic coding instead of huffman coding, and arithmetic coding is covered patent(s), but nobody uses it.

JPEG-2000 may have patent issues due to wavelet compression.  Nobody is really using JPEG-2000 yet AFAIK.

These patent issues are, thankfully, a real barrier to universal adoption of those formats.

[damocles]

Fractal compression was said to be the future of image compression in the days of Windows 3.1 and Quake, but then you have patents everywhere.

Two decades later, you don't hear about fractal compression nearly as much as you hear about wavelet compression (JPEG 2000, Bink Video, (Ogg) Tarkin, Snow codec...).

under this logic though a jpg(or gif) could be considered GPLed which I dont think is the case your trying to make.

that image you linked to in your last post can't be GPL because of its proprietary format and the patents that restrict the actual use of it btw.

I was referring to the picture's content, instead of it being a JPEG image as far as media source is concerned.

It's Dolby and Sony SDDS data, and a waveform.  Can you look at the waveform (or any waveform) and know or tell what you're supposed to hear (and not something easy like drums)?^*

As for images, you can at least look at it and (depending on your art or image editing experience) get an idea of what it is and how it was done (and even more so with a Photoshop PSD or GIMP XCF).^**



_{* It's supposed to be "no" (but then maybe I also suck at things like this, and a real audio engineer could identify it blindfolded).}

^{** With the waveform, you don't have this luxury.  (While you can cheat and listen to it, this more often won't help you as much as with images.)}

[andrewj]

The GSFDL license (currently only a draft) looks more appropriate for media.

For four freedoms have become the following:

    *  0. The freedom to read, view, or use the work.
    * 1. The freedom to change the work, with access to formats which make that convenient to do.
    * 2. The freedom to make and redistribute copies of the work.
    * 3. The freedom to distribute modified versions.

Wikipedia has more info on GSFDL and a link to the GNU page about it.

[Case]

GSFDL sounds like a great idea, i'm going to grep gnu.org to see if I can find more info on it. Do you think OA might change it's media's license to that if it ever gets to be a license?

[Case]

couldn't find to much info on the GFSDL, but I did find this great link http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/