[okfn-discuss] Open Source movie definition

Rob Myers rob at robmyers.org
Wed Apr 1 15:28:55 UTC 2009

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> No the definition is definitely intended to include sources: "The work
> must also be available in a convenient and modifiable form."

This sounds more like "transparent form" from the FDL than
"accompanying source" from the GPL.

The CC licences don't require source, they just disallow DRM.

If someone mashes up two MP3s they won't have the structured
high-quality sources to produce a structured high-quality source form
for their own work.

So requiring sources can be burdensome for some popular (think fan
mash-ups) or high cultural forms (think painting and sculpture) and
isn't supported by most licences.

These aren't fundamental arguments against requiring source, and I
think cinema could definitely benefit from a source requirement (it's
one of the examples I use when discussing requiring source for
cultural works with people). But it will be a logistically and
culturally difficult requirement to introduce.

- Rob.

More information about the okfn-discuss mailing list