Re: Defining 'preferred form for making modifications'
* Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> [030624 13:19]:
> > > 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 think you two make the thing more complex by looking at abstract
examples.
To tell what your "prefered form for modification" is, just think what
you would prefer. I case of a high-level format and a derived low-level
format with manual changes, just consider you wanted to make changes in
the future.
If you can only imagine to take the low-level format and make further
changes to it, then this is clearly the prefered form.
If you would think "Heck, where did I put the layered format" and would
use this and added the manual changes again to this, then the source is
clearly the layered format and the changes (be it as some form of diff
or as the low-level file incorporating them).
Simple and effective...
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.
Reply to: