On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:11:47PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > 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. Yes, I'm accepting "or as close as is physically possible". Note that I'm not including "economically possible" or "politically possible". I can easily defend relaxing restrictions enough to accomodate physical laws of the universe; I cannot do so to accomodate somebody else's profit margin. > 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. That example was carefully selected. You don't *get* another chance to take a picture of a lightning bolt. They only last a second or two, and every one is unique. That photo is the only one that will ever exist. (jpeg-compressed is no good when a non-lossy format is available, though). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature