On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > > > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >>> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not > >>> adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this argument to all JPEGs? > >> > >> The freedom to modify the images to suit my purposes, of course. See > >> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html > > > > Right. If I create an image and only save it as a JPEG (say I've taken a > > picture with a digital camera and then overlayed some text on top of > > it), is that sufficient to satisfy DFSG 1? > > No, for a photograph the source is the actual physical object you've > made a picture of, so a photograph can never be free. Either this, or > a photograph should be considered as source. "This is a photograph" is not sufficient information to determine whether something might be source. Extreme examples: a photograph of the text of a C file is not source. A photograph of a lightning bolt isn't directly source, but it's the best thing physically possible for us to have short of source. Intermediate cases require the exercise of judgement, as always. A photograph of the Eiffel Tower is probably the best we're going to get; there's only one of them and it won't fit in the archive. A photograph of a PCB layout, constructed by a secret program, is not a reasonable substitute for the program. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature