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

[Lists]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:36:28 +0100
Pablo Rodríguez <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 10/30/2013 09:35 AM, Lists wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:54:28 +0100 Pablo Rodríguez wrote:
> >> The short answer is I can’t. I don’t code.
> > 
> > But others do, can, and as far as I recall, you have some skill
> > Pablo. Despite your protestations to the contrary. ;o)
> 
> I really appreciate your kind words, although I must conclude that you
> overestimate my skills :-).

If you say so. ;o)
 
> 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

> >> First of all, the transition time list as eligible for copyright
> >> protection sounds weird to me (it’s a list of pure numbers), but
> >> someone suggested me that the creativity in that list is a
> >> plausible option for copyright protection.
> > 
> > Sure, plausible, if a little tenuous.  They do say though, that
> > timing is everything!
> 
> Of course, it is tenuous. But even if tenuous, I know this possibility
> and I shouldn’t ignore it.

No, quite.
 
> 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.
 
> >> The issue, as far as understand it, was that if the script was
> >> under the GPL and it contained the time list, this might cause the
> >> user to release the presentation under the GPL. (At least the time
> >> list would be under the GPL.)
> > 
> > Not necessarily. I think this section covers that..
> > 
> >     https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput
> 
> I don’t think this is exactly the case.

Maybe not exactly, however, it does cover the attempt to someone to
force GPL on the output from your program script ( that a user is
running.. )

> Of course, if emacs is released under the GPL (I guess it is), all
> files generated with emacs aren’t required to be released under the
> GPL.

GNU emacs is GPL.  A text editor with a Lisp based interpreter at it's
heart.  If one were to write a presentation or short story or similar,
using it, I doubt one would be required to release said work under GPL!
( User's choice of course ).

> But the swfc script contains both (1) instructions to generate
> the .swf file and (2) ActionScript code that is part of the
> output .swf file.
> 
> Considered as (1), the swfc script is totally independent from the
> output and generated .swf files aren’t required to be released under
> the GPL (as it happens with emacs).

swfc script is a script language in it's own right, one released under
the GPL.  It's format allows the swfc compiler to turn it into an swf,
Action Script included.  What is produced, bearing in mind certain
restrictions, is again user choice as to licensing.

> 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 Action Script.  Nothing more.
Where is the derivative bit?

> 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?
 
> With the latest Gnash stable version, it‘s impossible to play a
> presentation.
> 
> I hope that the bug will be fixed in the future, but the bug itself is
> almost five years old.
> 
> >> And I’m afraid that Gnash is not actively maintained.
> > 
> > Doesn't appear quite dead yet..
> > 
> >    https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=gnash
> 
> I’m more than happy to be proven wrong in this.
> 
> 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!!!


Chris.