Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>> 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.
>
> I'm having difficulty reconciling these two statements.
The first of those wasn't seriously intended. The point is that
talking about the "source" for a photograph is meaningless. The
camera stores JPEGs, and that's what we'll have to use, like it or
not.
>> In your case, your best bet would probably be to provide the
>> photograph without the text, or (even better) provide the image in a
>> more advanced format (e.g. XCF) with the photograph and text in
>> different layers.
>
> That still results in one layer being a JPEG (effectively). Is that JPEG
> able to satisfy the source requirements? Requiring layered formats for
> source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases.
A layered format is only one manner to provide a reasonable "source"
form. The author could also provide the raw JPEG and an ImageMagick
command he used to add the text.
Whether a PNG should be considered source or not depends on the
content. If I made a PNG consisting of a white background with a
black rectangle, I probably wouldn't bother to save any other format.
If the image were made up from many elements with transparency etc.,
saving an XCF (or equivalent) would make sense, so the elements could
be repositioned and a new PNG generated.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: