Re: Defining 'preferred form for making modifications'
Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
> Scripsit tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
>
> > The history you were considering was a .xcf (or the like), which
> > someone then modified a few parts of in its gif output.
>
> "A few parts" was never in the history I am talking about. Someone
> distributed a picture as .xcf and a flattened .gif; I wanted to change
> the way the picture looked, so I edited the gif. Simple as that, and
> no mention of "a few parts" at all.
In such a case, you are certainly within your rights, and if it's
gpl'd you must distribute the complete source: which is the xcf and
the modified gif.
> However, you're arguing that I must not *distribute* the modified
> machine language unless I can somehow invent a high-level source that
> happens to produce my modified machine language, right?
Nope, I did not say that.
> > So far you don't understand my interpretation, because you misstate it
> > each time you try and reproduce it....
>
> In that case your interpretation has been stated very hazily. Do you,
> or do you not, state that an xcf is somehow the source of a modified
> image that looks wildly different from anything that can be produced
> by automatic means using the xcf?
It is *partially* the source.
You have steadfastly refused to address the parallel case of a
program, and I think it is this refusal that is contributing to your
confusion about my position.
Reply to: