On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:28:50 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 09:15 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit : > > > Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here. > > > > The same applies if you don't provide the source code for the picture. > > No. If you’re the copyright owner, you get to decide what is the > preferred form of modification. This is as true as it is for programs. I can compile C++ code into assembly code and go on modifying the assembly code directly (with an editor) and assemble my modified assembly code. At that point, the source for the final machine language code is the assembly code I modified. The last modifier gets to decide what is the preferred form for making further modifications. As long as he/she is honest about his/her claims, everything is fine. On the other hand, if I go on modifying C++ code, compile it into assembly code and distribute assembly code claiming it is source, I am acting dishonestly: actual source is C++ code. Pictures should be treated exactly with the same criteria. If the last modifier honestly prefers form "F" for making (further) modifications, then F [1] is source. I hope this clarifies. [1] or any other equivalent form from which F may be re-obtained in a lossless manner (think about gzipping F, for instance) -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND "nano-documents" may lead you to my website... ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpV7zm2k0h0c.pgp
Description: PGP signature