[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Defining 'preferred form for making modifications'

Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:

> Scripsit tb@becket.net (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
> layered editor.

In such a case, the layered format is the preferred form, for the
simple reason that if you have distributed that, then the "raw pixels
of the gif" are still accessible and can be edited, by doing a simple
conversion process.

Though, I would not be adverse to saying that perhaps both ought to be
regarded as source in some cases.

> 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.

Again, I'm not sure what I think about this question with respect to
free software in general.  But in the case of the GPL, the answer is
easy: don't drop the xcf files from the distribution, period.  End of problem.


Reply to: