MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe Jeremy could have sprinkled a "just" or some > "reasonably"s into it to help you, but it looks fairly > clear from the original context what narrow aspect he was > looking at. Remember, your previous intervention Message-id: ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> only considered one > question 'Is the JPEG your "source"?' from David Schmitt's list > of questions. *You* specialised the subthread, so you shouldn't > start playing people offside by regeneralising it.
Jeremy said "We're not worried about how modifiable the end result is. We're worried about how the author would prefer to make modifications", which was entirely the point I answered. I think the modifiability of a work is the defining characteristic of its freeness (or otherwise), and as a result the mechanism used to generate that work is unimportant. That applies to JPEGs as much as it applies to any other form of work. I haven't had an explanation for why the author should have any special say in the matter. > Further, your definition of source code in Message-id: ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is full of lawyerbombs > and looks unworkable, apart from possibly causing a PR disaster > by blanket-banning machine code sources from main if you mean > one reasonably possible interpretation. I'm not attempting to claim it's a workable definition. I'm saying that it's my definition. I'm happy to admit that the way I've phrased it is currently inadequate. >> Having gone back and >> reread it, I still interpret that way. If that interpretation was wrong, >> then I wholeheartedly apologise. > > Given that he's already asked you "Are you willfully refusing > to understand what I said", I don't see how you can reasonably > still claim that your representation of him was accurate. There are two possibilities here. Someone either believes that the modifiability of a work is more important than whether the work is in the author's preferred form for modification, or they don't. I'm having difficulty finding any way to fit Jeremy's statement into the first catagory, regardless of context. > Again, I am seriously worried that I agree with Andrew Suffield. :-/ Why does this worry you? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
