Re: Defining 'preferred form for making modifications'
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.
> The point is *exactly* the same as for a program: nothing about the
> GPL says that you cannot program in machine language;
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?
> > But you just claimed that the xcf is the preferred form "for
> > everyone". Please make up your mind.
> Precisely when the xcf is the exact source of the actual gif in
> question.
And I'm talking about a situation where the xcf is *not* the exact
source of the actual gif in question.
> If the gif has been modified on its own, then the source is
> now the combination of both the xcf and the gif.
This "combination" idea does not make sense to me.
a: The xcf does not even look like the modified gif.
b: The modified gif contains all the information about how it looks
itself.
c: There is no way to use the xcf to reproduce the modified gif,
save for manually reproducing the exact artistic choices I made
while editing the gif.
Thus, nobody in their right mind would prefer to use the xcf as the
baseline for producing a modified version of the gif. They are two
different images!
> > The xcf may be source for somethine, but there is no way it can be
> > source for the modified gifs. The latter pictures look entirely
> > different from the xcfs.
> Yes, it's not the sole source.
It is not source at all.
> 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?
--
Henning Makholm "It's kind of scary. Win a revolution and
a bunch of lawyers pop out of the woodwork."
Reply to: