Re: Defining 'preferred form for making modifications'
Scripsit tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
> > The GPL'ed source contains ugly xpm's that upstream created pixel for
> > pixel in Emacs because he knew no better and thought he was only
> > making a proof-of-concept implementation anyway. I import the xpm into
> > the Gimp, painstakingly separate the raw pixels into reasonable
> > layers, then add nifty colors and drop shadows. Finally I merge the
> > layers and quantisize the image, then save as xpm again.
> > Will I be in violation of the GPL if I distribute it withough *also*
> > saving it as xcf and distributing that?
> The format you preferred to modify the work in was as a layered
> image. Is this not obvious, especially given the work you did in
> creating just that layered image?
> If you never saved the xpf, then I am disinclined to think this is
> ok.
Do you mean by that that if I use an editor that does not have a
save format that losslessly reproduces all of its internal state,
then I can only distribute the output under the GPL if I also ship a
revivable core dump of the editor?
> I write a bunch of Scheme code in a fancy Scheme system, never saving
> my work, using only an editing buffer. When my program is as I like
> it, I use the system's "standalone executable" feature to writeout a
> binary of the program, and then I quit.
Would you think anybody would be comfortable with (functionally)
modifying the output of that process? I can show you dozens of people
who would be perfectly comfortable with functionally modifying a gif.
--
Henning Makholm "I, madam, am the Archchancellor!
And I happen to run this University!"
Reply to: