On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:28:44 +0000 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Ok. I have some sympathy with that viewpoint.
Please note that this is the "preferred form for modification"
viewpoint.
And I agree with this standpoint.
A really simple image may well be preferred in PNG format when you want
to make modifications to it.
But when the upstream author keeps some other format that he/she
modifies in order to regenerate the PNG image, then that other format is
the source code: failing to provide it is failing to give others the
same modification "comfort" that upstream has...
> However, people should
> be aware that adopting this standard /will/ put us at odds with the
> community as a whole, not to mention the practical implications of
> having to check every single graphic file in the archive.
Avoiding compromises with freedom is hard, but Debian SC states that the
project promises to avoid them.
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp2jUymp1scR.pgp
Description: PGP signature