On 31/10/11 03:53, Jon Ippolito wrote:
>
> In fact, given that the Open Art License requires sharealike
> ("copyleft"), whatever sources the original author releases are by
> definition the kinds of sources that derivative works must expose
> too.
Not necessarily.
I need only share-alike the *published* version.
If I download the high-resolution version of (e.g.) a scan of a Joy
Garnett painting and remix that, there is no reason why I should not
publish only a low-resolution version. And if I wish to make a dumb JPEG
remix of an image, I shouldn't be forced to have to make a multi-layer
GIMP file in order to do so.
Private culture may be an oxymoron, but forcing publication of works is
non-free and illiberal.
The moral case is that the audience of a work be free to answer its
speech effectively. If only a low-resolution version is published (made
public), the public doesn't necessarily need a high-resolution version.
http://robmyers.org/2007/08/26/source-code-cultural-sources-and-privacy/
But on the other hand...
> The principle, as I see it, is simply to provide all the parts, in
> editable form, required to make the work *within its original
> context*.
http://robmyers.org/2007/08/26/cultural-sources/
"The ideal cultural source will be:
* Transparent - In a format that is easily editable by human beings.
For electronic versions, preferably a text-based format.
* Full quality - Of a standard that allows you to at least recreate
the distributed format (so at least one generation above the released
version).
* Complete - Consisting of at least the materials required to
recreate the distributed version, with any cues or lead ins included.
* Unencumbered - In a free and open format unencumbered by patents,
DRM or any future impediment to use.
* Structured - Preferably in a vector, multi-track or other rich format."
- Rob.
