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

[Pablo Rodríguez]

On 10/31/2013 07:29 PM, Lists wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:36:28 +0100 Pablo Rodríguez wrote:
>> But even if I wrote a new script, I would rather release it to under a
>> license with a copyleft provision. I mean, it makes no sense to me
>> that people won’t share back improvements to what has been shared
>> with them.
> 
> Quite.  I'd have thought that being a Lessig fan though, you;d have gone
> for the ShareALike license. ;o)
>  
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShareAlike

The ShareAlike provision is also included in the GPLv3. If I’m not
completely mistaken, this is also a copyleft provision. ShareAlike and
copyleft are mainly terms of licenses. They don’t necessarily constitute
a license by itself.

I have a Python script that generates the presentation from the PDF
file, the sound and the timeline. The Python script is under the GNU
GPLv2+. I could have chosen another license for the swfc script, but one
license should rule them all :-). I mean, it doesn’t make much sense to
me to release a program with basically two scripts under two different
licenses.

I have also another reason to decline the CC BY-SA. In case I need to
write an exception to the license, the GPLv3 has a method to do this.
With the CC BY-SA, there is no room for exceptions. (I guess that an
exception in the script license may solve all these issues.)

>> If this timing list a slightly more than list of pure numbers and
>> eligible for copyright protection, that has an unintended consequence:
>> if included in a script under the GPL, user may be required to release
>> the whole presentation under the GPL.
> 
> I'd venture that on it's own, the time-line listing is not sufficient
> to warrant Copyright protection.  It'd surely have to relate to the
> content it times, for any Copyright to hold.

In a Flash presentation, the time listing is essentially related to the
content.

>> But considered as (2), the ActionScript is the code present in the
>> generated .swf file (it‘s actually the code that makes the whole
>> presentation work). This is a derivative from the original script.
> 
> There we disagree.  It is merely compiled ActionScript.  Nothing more.
> Where is the derivative bit?

Here I must admit that I thought that ActionScript was simply embedded
and not compiled. (My own ignorance is the culprit.)

Even in that case, the compiled code from sources is also protected by
copyright law. Or am I missing something here?

>From the swfc script itself, if I add a timeline into the base script to
create a new script, this new script is a derivative from the base script.

>> If
>> the original script is released under the GPL, derivative works should
>> comply with the GPL. And this means presentations that include the
>> script too.
> 
> Are you referring to the swfc scipt or the ECMA script?

Well, I think this applies to both scripts, but the ECMA script
(ActionScript) part was the one I meant.

>> But I’m still afraid that Gnash development is very slow.
> 
> I've not tried it of late, I should go look.  Anyways. maybe by the time
> it has been developed further, you will have moved away from your
> dependence on Flash swf format!!!

You’re right, I should have moved away by then.


Pablo
-- 
http://www.ousia.tk