The GNUArt model consists of applying the GNU General Public License to any mind creation.
In order to be eligible, these creations must be ©opyright-able.
The GNU General Public License also asserts we can define these creations' source code.
We will discuss here about what can unmistakably be considered as a creation's source code, whatever the creation is.
In order to get to a proper conclusion, we must define the creation to which we'll apply the GNU General Public License : Is it the final "product" or each of its individual components ?
Let's take an example: a ballet. Will its creator want to protect the final creation as an audio-visual sequence, or its music, choregraphy or costumes design ?
The choice the creator faces here only depends on what he actually wishes to protect.
He will however have to define the actual protection required for each subset of his creation.
Protection is associated to the chosen ©opyright/License, whether Free or not. It is a mandatory pre-requisite against those looters who will patent some previously unprotected creation and sometimes even turn this "legal theft" in a "racket" by suing the legitimate creator.
Our GNU General Public License interpretation takes into account the possibility to join Free Art creations to "commercial compilations". This might then help artists promoting their creations through standard commercial channels. They can then ©opyright only some of their creations which they'll distribute with others of their GPL'ed creations.
GNUArt will sustain whatever the creator will put under the GNU General Public License protection with no ulterior motive. The protection of his other creations will depend on the chosen Patents office.