PostScript can be the preferred form of modification (was: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch)
Florian Weimer <email@example.com> wrote:
> * Frank Küster:
>> It is for sure not a bug to contain a PostScript file where PostScript
>> is the preferred form of modification. If you have tetex-base
>> installed, /usr/share/texmf/dvips/misc/resolution400.ps is a short
>> example, /usr/share/texmf/dvips/misc/crops.pro is a bit longer.
>> There are people in this world who can read and program PostScript.
> Sure, and it's the preferred form of modifcation for removing
> ink-wasting background images from Powerpoint presentations, but: This
> is not the kind of modifcation I'm talking about.
I know, but you missed the point. PostScript can be the source, the
preferred form of modification, in some cases, because PostScript is a
This subthread started when you asked whether non-editable documentation
was allowed in Debian, and you gave PostScript as an example format.
Bernhard R. Link pointed out that PostScript is editable and can be the
Preferred Form of Modification. I have given examples where this is the
case (see the citation above).
This means that whenever we write something down about removing non-free
stuff we should be carefull to phrase it right, and not do it as you did
in your mail: We should not write anything that might imply that all
PostScript documents without any form of "source" must be removed from
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich