Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
> 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.
It could very well be, depending on intent. If the photograph is an
artistic composition, that happens to include a piece of paper (or a
computer monitor) with C source on it, I can't see any reason to
require that code as a text file. Program code in machine readable
form should only be required if the code in question is intended to be
executed by whomever it is distributed to. This is not (typically)
the case with code visible in a photograph.
> 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.
Exactly my point. We should only be requiring "source" where there
exists a source that can be stored and distributed digitally.
> 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.
Here I guess one could give the exact time and coordinates to the
location where the photograph was made, and perhaps other details
allowing someone to make another similar photograph.
> A photograph of a PCB layout, constructed by a secret program, is
> not a reasonable substitute for the program.
Again, it depends on intent. If the photograph is intended to
primarily depict the *layout*, we might wish to get the layout in a
standard file format for PCB layouts. If, on the other hand, the it
is a photograph of a PCB board, and the exact layout is not
interesting, I can see no need for any "source". Requiring the actual
program is still unreasonable though. We don't require distribution
of a program to be accompanied with the editor used to write the
source, we require only the source code as such. Here we are touching
on an aspect where the GPL and the Debian "rules" differ, though.
Software released under the GPL can still be such that it can only be
compiled with a non-free compiler, whereas Debian requires everything
in "main" to be buildable using only free tools (present in main?).
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: