Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
"Michael K. Edwards" <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100, Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> 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 really, really hope this is sarcasm, or reductio ad absurdum, or something.
Something like that, yes.
>> 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.
>
> Er, reality check? This is the software industry, not the publishing
> industry. It's a pain to work around obscured data and
> compression/decompression cycle artifacts when, say, fixing a spelling
> error in overlaid text, but amateur image manipulators do it all the
> time. If an image isn't permitted in a source tarball unless there's
> a color-glossy-magazine level of professionalism in facilitating later
> modifications, then you might as well toss out 98% of the GUIs in
> Debian, not to mention 99.5% of closed-source software.
>
> It's good to encourage people to use sophisticated workflow when
> creating images, as when creating software. But we don't call
> software non-free when it isn't developed using Extreme Programming
> methodology or UML modeling, not least because these techniques are
> overkill for most module-scale programming projects. And we shouldn't
> call images non-free just because they weren't shot Camera RAW,
> imported to a Photoshop clone, and manipulated losslessly at every
> stage.
I didn't say we should be *requiring* it. I was merely stating what I
consider can reasonably be called "source" for the hypothetical JPEG
with overlaid text.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: