Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:41:43PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> 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.
>
> You know what I meant;
In the context of this thread, I can't be quite sure. We have to
distinguish between two cases: 1) the photograph being presented as
being the source for the program that would result from compiling the
C code depicted, and 2) as a picture of the source code for something.
The photograph can quite obviously never be reasonably considered to
be the source for the *program*, but a JPEG (or whatever format) can
be the source for a *picture of the source for the program*.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: