[License-discuss] Strong copyleft for art

[Stephen Paul Weber]

Hey all,

I've been thinking recently about the issue that Creative Commons does not 
specify a copyleft license which would require the distribution of "source 
form" for art that has a source form seperate from its distribution form.  
Examples could be: images/videos rendered from blender models, PDFs rendered 
from LaTeX, music in audio files that was originally created in a sequencer, 
etc.

CC-BY-SA does not really require that derivatives that then get "compiled" 
must provide anything like a source offer along with their distribution.

I'm wondering if GPLv3 or other strong copyleft licenses in existance would 
have the desired effect when appiled to art?  I know the GPL was very 
specifically written for software, but with very similar goals.

-- 
Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma
See <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted
edition right joseph
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150410/ab1766bd/attachment.sig>