Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
> "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.
I think with these examples you're getting away from the "preferred form
for making modifications" definition of source. Maybe it's because I
don't know enough about photography & graphical arts -- if so, I hope to
be informed. But if I were to take a picture of lightning and decide I
wanted a slightly different picture, it seems I'd either edit the jpeg
(possibly bitmap, but I don't see the point of making that source in
most cases) or take a new picture. Same with the Eiffel Tower. For
most of us who don't know anything about graphic arts, we'd probably
just take a new picture.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: