Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:11:47PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> 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 I don't think you need to relax the restrictions at all to
accommodate this example.
>> 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).
I see the "preferred form" definition of source as suggesting a thought
experiment. For example, I, a novice photographer, take a picture of a
lightning bolt (assuming I can do this, as a novice photographer) to
include in part of my splash screen for my new game. Later I decide I
want a slightly different picture. What do I do? I'd probably either
take a new picture or I edit the jpeg. If so, I'd argue that either the
jpeg is source, or nothing is necessary for source.
You can't simply decide that, for X kind of work, Y is always the
correct source -- even if you then make allowances for physical
impossibilities. You have to look at (for one thing, at least*) what the
author would actually *do*. It's a question of fact, as I mentioned
elsewhere.
* I haven't yet decided whether there might be cases where the author is
so crazy/nasty that his opinion isn't the deciding one.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: