On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:16:46AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote: > > > What sorts of issues with JPEGs? We should have available and > > distribute the prefered form for modification for them as well. That > > is, whatever form upstream actually uses when upstream wants to modify > > the JPEG. In some cases, this will just be a JPEG. In others, it will > > be an XCF, SVG or something else entirely. > > If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us > removing a large number of packages from Debian. However, even ignoring > that, I think your definition leads to some strangeness. It suggests > that a JPEG is DFSG-free in and of itself in some cases, but that the > existence of a lossless representation of that picture renders the JPEG > non-free unless it's distributed with that lossless representation. If I > delete the only copy of the lossless picture, is the JPEG now source? > > If a JPEG can be considered "free enough" under some circumstances, I'm > confused as to why it's not always good enough. This parallels the case for programs. An i386 binary can be considered "free enough" under some circumstances, but the existence of source code renders that non-free unless it's distributed with source. Yes, it's odd, but it's odd in the opposite direction to the one you're coming at it from. The unexpected thing is that the binary, or jpeg, can *ever* be considered free. Conversely, any argument which says jpegs are always free enough, also says the same thing about program binaries. There's nothing special about pictures here. We did this one years ago and concluded that in the absence of source, it is possible for these things to be considered free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature