[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Swftools-common] basic question on ActionScript 2.0

From: Lists
Subject: Re: [Swftools-common] basic question on ActionScript 2.0
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:47:04 +0000

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:38:49 +0000
John Sullivan <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013, 8:49:47 AM, Lists wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:50:40 +0100
> > Pablo Rodríguez <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> On 10/28/2013 10:49 PM, John Sullivan wrote:
> >> > On Monday, October 28, 2013, 8:54:30 PM, Pablo Rodríguez wrote:
> >> >> But I think Flash is the way to go (at least for now).
> >> > 
> >> > Write a small perl script (or similar) to convert the source
> >> > timeline data into ActionScript variable declarations within
> >> > a .action block in a separate file.
> >> > 
> >> > Use .include from the main .sc to incorporate those declarations
> >> > into the final SWF.
> > That is merely attempted obfuscation of the original time-line data.
> > It doesn't exactly resolve the licensing issue.
> Not at all.
> I think we are agreed that the original timeline data (both data and
> timing informations) are due copyright protection as a separate work.

If the user chooses to take that path, then yes.  User's choice.
> The output of the transformation script (ie, the same timeline data
> merely expressed as a set of ActionScript variable declarations) would
> be a derived work of that, and therefore fall under the same
> license/restrictions. As a purely mechanical transform with only
> trivial additions, it is unlikely that it would acquire any additional
> copyright. (Though if the original license was a use-without-
> modifications one, that might nix this step.)

Hmmm. Changing how you represent the original data, does not change the
licensing of the original data, agreed, but if it is Copyright, then you
are not really allowed to change ( even its format ) without due notice
to and permission from the Copyright holder.   

> The transformation script itself however, since it could act on any
> similarly formatted input file(s) and is not tied to any particular
> one, would not be a derived work of the original timeline data 

The script that does the transformation or encoding is an entirely
separate matter. GPL licensing or Copyrighting of the original time-
line data is the issue, surely?

> it
> would be its own work and so a license could be chosen to suit the
> author of that. (Presumably the same as the main .sc file would be
> most convenient.)

Again, I don;t disagree.

> The main .sc file, also not being tied to any one particular set of
> timeline data files, would not count as a derived work of them. If the
> interface it imports from the modified timeline data is generic (say,
> one array of text strings called timeline_lines[], one equal sized
> array of timestamps called timeline_times[]) and available from any
> output produced by the transformation script. As long as it itself
> embeds no special knowledge of any particular source input file, it
> cannot possibly be considered a derived work of any one of them,
> otherwise you'd end up with the ridiculous situation that it would
> automatically and silently become a derived work as soon any anyone
> produced a new timeline source file.

Again ( long winded though that was ;o)  ), I don't disagree. 

> So the main .sc, the transformation script, the timeline data
> (including transformed timeline data) are all three separate works,
> redistributable under each their own terms, which is what I think
> Pablo is after here. If all you care about is distributing the main
> .sc itself and have no concern about what people downstream would be
> legally allowed to do with it (and I think that *is* worth
> considering, if they effectively wouldn't be able to actually use it),
> that is as far as it goes.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer given above.

> The final concern is that the final SWF, embedding both the main .sc
> and the timeline data, becomes a derived work of both, and the GPL at
> least probably therefore requires anyone distributing the SWF to make
> available *all* source data required to reproduce the final SWF under
> terms no more restrictive than the GPL itself. If the licenses of the
> components do not allow for this, then the SWF itself may not be
> distributed. Which might include putting it on a webserver to use it
> normally (unless there was a special license exception for that case).

The issue here, is that if the time-line data were Copyrighted in some
way, then you'd need the Copyright holder's full permission to use it.
If that was not given, then apart from personal private consumption,
you'd not be able to produce nor use the time-line data nor swf.
> To deal with that you would pretty much have to store the data
> separately on the server and use URLLoader within the SWF to load it
> at run time, again with no special built-in knowledge of any one file,
> to make it clear the timeline data is merely data *input* to the final
> program, not a component part *of* it.

Again, same thing goes.  No permission. No dice.
( This has all got a tad pedantic, huh? )


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]