Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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;
In the context of this thread, I can't be quite sure. We have to distinguish between two cases: 1) the photograph being presented as being the source for the program that would result from compiling the C code depicted, and 2) as a picture of the source code for something. The photograph can quite obviously never be reasonably considered to be the source for the *program*, but a JPEG (or whatever format) can be the source for a *picture of the source for the program*. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
