Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> Maybe Jeremy could have sprinkled a "just" or some
> "reasonably"s into it to help you, but it looks fairly
> clear from the original context what narrow aspect he was
> looking at. Remember, your previous intervention Message-id:
><[🔎] E1D6T7Y-00075z-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk> only considered one
> question 'Is the JPEG your "source"?' from David Schmitt's list
> of questions. *You* specialised the subthread, so you shouldn't
> start playing people offside by regeneralising it.
Jeremy said "We're not worried about how modifiable the end result is.
We're worried about how the author would prefer to make modifications",
which was entirely the point I answered. I think the modifiability of a
work is the defining characteristic of its freeness (or otherwise), and
as a result the mechanism used to generate that work is unimportant.
That applies to JPEGs as much as it applies to any other form of work. I
haven't had an explanation for why the author should have any special
say in the matter.
> Further, your definition of source code in Message-id:
><[🔎] E1D6dyQ-0002lh-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk> is full of lawyerbombs
> and looks unworkable, apart from possibly causing a PR disaster
> by blanket-banning machine code sources from main if you mean
> one reasonably possible interpretation.
I'm not attempting to claim it's a workable definition. I'm saying that
it's my definition. I'm happy to admit that the way I've phrased it is
currently inadequate.
>> Having gone back and
>> reread it, I still interpret that way. If that interpretation was wrong,
>> then I wholeheartedly apologise.
>
> Given that he's already asked you "Are you willfully refusing
> to understand what I said", I don't see how you can reasonably
> still claim that your representation of him was accurate.
There are two possibilities here. Someone either believes that the
modifiability of a work is more important than whether the work is in
the author's preferred form for modification, or they don't. I'm having
difficulty finding any way to fit Jeremy's statement into the first
catagory, regardless of context.
> Again, I am seriously worried that I agree with Andrew Suffield. :-/
Why does this worry you?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: