Re: Licensing special software

X-Comment-To: Wolf

Hi!

28-Окт-2002 18:27 [email protected] (Wolf) wrote to "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>:

>> Does anyone have ideas or comments about the choice of an appropriate
>> license for such a material?
W> From the GNU website: The GNU General Public License. The GNU GPL can be
W> used for general data which is not software, as long as one can determine
W> what the definition of "source code" refers to in the particular case. As
W> it turns out, the DSL* also requires that you determine what the "source
W> code" is, using approximately the same definition that the GPL uses.
W> *) DSL = Design Science License
W> Read more on: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses

     Content of .EXE file is input for CPUs, which performs some actions
according to code. Content of .C file is input for compilers, which generate
.EXE from .C. Content of .BAS, .BAT files are input for interpreters (BASIC,
COMMAND.COM), which perform some actions according to code.

     I.e. "input", which control actions of subject, is source code for
subject. Some source code used to generate other source code (translation),
other source code used to perform more generic actions (preprocessing,
interpretation - yes, CPUs _interpret_ "machine code"). If some source code
(.EXE) is result of translation from other source code and translation is
deterministic, then secondary source code may be called "executables",
"binaries", etc. See Topic 3 of GPL, where mentioned "object code",
"exectable form, "executable" and "binary form".

     Subclass of source code is "data code", "data files" - unlike generic
interpretation, their content are limited to specific tasks. For example,
graphic files, archives, layout definitions, MIDI files. I suggest, that in
this case GPL also may be used, but there may be used more specialized
licenses (something like Art License).