Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Strictly yes, being mistaken is not an excuse. Just like if you > discover that old versions of the package contained i386 binaries > without source, the old versions are non-free. Also note that in both > cases, they were *always* non-free (I really shouldn't have to explain > this). The status has not changed, it's just that we weren't aware of > it before.
Ok. If that JPEG was considered sufficiently modifiable in the absence of the raw image, why is it not considered sufficiently modifiable in the presence of it? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
