Re: a LICENSE file does not necessarily apply to everything in a repo

[bill-auger]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:44:33 -0400 Richard wrote:
>   > the GPL explicitly states that it only pertains to source code;  
> I don't think so.  We designed GPL 3 to be usable for all kinds
> of works.

i could have worded that better - what is says is that it must
be made clear, what qualifies as the
complete-corresponding-source for the work - the GPL presumes
that the CCS form is obvious for executables; but that is not so
obvious for other blobs such as images and audio - the CCS for
those, may be in many different forms, including other binaries
(eg: GIMP .xcf files); and those formats are often proprietary -
so, to use the GPL for those non-functional data blobs, the GPL
alone is not sufficient

i would like to see the GPL used more for artworks; because none
of the popular "free-culture" licenses have the CCS requirement
- to have the CCS, is no less important for modifying art/music
than for programs - in fact, it is more important for art/music
files; because those can not be dis-assembled - it is
technically impossible to de-compose the source layers faithfully

for lacking the CCS requirement, the free-culture licenses offer
less freedom than permissive licenses - unlike source code,
artists rarely disclose the CCS for works of free-culture, which
makes "free-culture" something of a lie

i have made a GPL addendum for that use-case; which i add to any
GUI software i write, and recommend to anyone who asks - it would
be great if the FSF would endorse and recommend something like it

https://wiki.parabola.nu/GPL_Free_Culture_Addendum