Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "This is a photograph" is not sufficient information to determine > whether something might be source. Extreme examples: a photograph of > the text of a C file is not source. A photograph of a lightning bolt > isn't directly source, but it's the best thing physically possible for > us to have short of source. > > Intermediate cases require the exercise of judgement, as always. A > photograph of the Eiffel Tower is probably the best we're going to > get; there's only one of them and it won't fit in the archive. A > photograph of a PCB layout, constructed by a secret program, is not a > reasonable substitute for the program.
I think with these examples you're getting away from the "preferred form for making modifications" definition of source. Maybe it's because I don't know enough about photography & graphical arts -- if so, I hope to be informed. But if I were to take a picture of lightning and decide I wanted a slightly different picture, it seems I'd either edit the jpeg (possibly bitmap, but I don't see the point of making that source in most cases) or take a new picture. Same with the Eiffel Tower. For most of us who don't know anything about graphic arts, we'd probably just take a new picture. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
