Re: Defining 'preferred form for making modifications'
Scripsit email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Way two says that source is the preferred form for modification, and
> binaries are not.
Yes, but it is not unambiguous what this would result in in the case
of graphics. Some people would prefer to edit a layered format,
because it gives them better control and allow them to change the
semantic contents of the image without losing any overlaid effects.
Other people, however, would honestly prefer to edit the raw pixels of
the gif, because they don't want to learn how to use an advanced
I'm not sure whether the GPL must be interpreted that such that the
second group of people may not edit gifs that originate as, say, xcf's
at all. But in case it does, I advocate that we don't extend this
interpretation to DFSG as a whole.
Say, for example, some softare is BSD-licensed and comes with some
images as gifs as well as theyr xcf source. Somebody forks the package
but, not willing to learn how to use the Gimp, he edits the gifs
directly. Then he drops the xcf's from his distribution; they have
become severly out of sync with the gifs anyway. Should we then reject
the forked software from Debian main, on grounds it does not contain
source for the gifs? I say no.
Henning Makholm "Jeg har skabt lammeskyer, piskeris,
fingerspidsfornemmelser, polarkalotter, loddenhed,
vantro, rutenet, skumtoppe, datid, halvdistancer, restoplag,
gigt, pligtdanse, græsrødder, afdrift, bataljer, tyrepis, løvfald,
sideblikke, hulrum, røjsere, mislyd, loppetjans, øer, synsrande..."