<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">thanks for the explanation and reminding that point for discussion. i don't use the "copyleft" concept as is in GPL. my copyleft statement being distributed with the work is an adapted version of GPL to other works besides software like in free art licence. http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/<br><br>first of all, i also distribute all the video footage used and not used in the final edited video. since there are no cameras available(?) to capture ogg theora video, the captured video has to be consumer dv (or mpeg2 etc) but what i do is to convert all the footage to ogg theora&vorbis to distribute as the "source" material for the video. so anyone who wants to work on it should use a NLE that supports ogg or convert it to another format that s/he can work with. there is no statement in my copyleft notice
about the format of the derivative video. it is all about the content. whatever format they re-distribute it must be free to be copied, modified and redistributed. as an extreme example, it can be an issue if they re-distribute it with a proprietary codec like that of canopus dv and people who don't have the decoder can't see it. but the point is they can shoot the canpous dv video while playing on a monitor with a dv camera as an extreme example (even they can crack it!). like artist sherry levine has reproduced the photos of edward weston not from the original slide but a printed photo of it on a book. copyleft here is all about the content and concept. <br><br>i understand the point the "source the original author worked from" but i think it is different for video etc. for exampke i might have written the copyleft statement in .txt and distribute it as odf. the (meaning of the) thing written in both of them is the same, the viewer understands
the same thing. yes u r right that there is a "loss" in the video information, but you "watch" the same thing. the video quality may decrease for the further works but the viewer will see the same content. (of course there will be a difference at the aesthetics of the video but the content of the video is more important than its visual experinece for me. if you think further, it is not the same thing you see on big theatre a and small theatre b even if they are from the same print or on your plasma or crt monitor even if they are the same dvd...) as i have explained there is no remarkable difference between original consumer dv and 5000kbps ecoded theora video (taht i see on my monitor) and it is not that important even if there were... <br><br>so what is important for my project is to create an awareness and take attention to free formats rather than proprietary and encourage the experience of their use and copyleft attitude and free culture for
other fields besides software. <br><br><div> </div>.-_-.<div><br></div><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><br><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> "ogg.k.ogg.k@googlemail.com" <ogg.k.ogg.k@googlemail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Orton Akinci <ortonak@yahoo.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> theora@xiph.org<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thursday, January 8, 2009 12:16:03 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [theora] online service to host/share theora&vorbis encoded ogg file<br></font><br>
Since there is no answer to this, I'll have a go:<br><br>> Completely tangentially, what do you consider the 'preferred format<br>> for modification' for these pieces if it's under copyleft? (As opposed<br>> to Creative Commons.) Theora is pretty lossy for a mastering format,<br>> and of course it's already been edited down...<br><br>The GPL (as implied by your use of the term 'copyleft') define the<br>'source' for a work as the 'preferred format for modification'. The<br>goal is to enable others to be able to modify the work in the most<br>'canonical' way possible - ie, from the source the original author<br>worked from.<br><br>Thus, it would seem that, in order to release a video under GPL,<br>the source material would have to be supplied, instead of a lossy<br>version made from this source material.<br><br>I offer no opinion on the matter, merely explain the wording.<br><br>See the GPL, definitions section.<br></div></div></div><br>
</body></html>