Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net> writes:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> No, it doesn't. The lone JPEG is only non-free if the lossless
>> version is what the original author would use to make a modification
>> to the JPEG. If, for example, the original author threw out the
>> lossless version immediately on making the JPEG, that's strong
>> evidence it's not needed.
>
> Not necessarily. It might be that at the time the original author had
> no intention of any future modifications at all.
Sure, I did say "strong evidence", after all -- not proof. But we can
play hypotheticals all day. What's the point? If we try to anticipate
and decide in advance every corner case we'll get bogged down and get
nowhere. Wait for a concrete example to discuss. Then we can decide
based on the particular situation. Often if the author has no plans to
modify the jpeg it's because it'd be trivial to reproduce, I suspect.
In that case it may be reasonable to consider *that* the preferred means
of modification. Who knows?
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: