On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:41:43PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> >>> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not > >> >>> adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this argument to all JPEGs? > >> >> > >> >> The freedom to modify the images to suit my purposes, of course. See > >> >> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html > >> > > >> > Right. If I create an image and only save it as a JPEG (say I've taken a > >> > picture with a digital camera and then overlayed some text on top of > >> > it), is that sufficient to satisfy DFSG 1? > >> > >> No, for a photograph the source is the actual physical object you've > >> made a picture of, so a photograph can never be free. Either this, or > >> a photograph should be considered as source. > > > > "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. > > It could very well be, depending on intent.
You know what I meant; twisting my words is a waste of time. Not everything written in every single mail has to stand up in court. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
