Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Is it not obvious that the preferred form is .xcf? > > It is preferred, but does that make the other formats non-free?
I'm not sure. The talk about "preferred form" first comes up in the requirement of the GPL to provide source. I don't know whether or not the same restriction is the right one in defining free software in general. I was just answering the claim that the term is somehow hopelessly vague. In the context it was originally used, the copyleft, it's just fine. > Often the .xcf is simply not available anymore, not even to the > creator. The strength of the preference for it depends on the > complexity of the image and on the exact format (lossy jpeg? > blurred png? reduced palette?). It's an area where reasonable > people might disagree. If it isn't available at all, then that's an entirely different question from what if it is available, but a different format is being provided instead. If there is no longer any source code for a program, can the binary still be free software on its own? I don't know the answer, but that's the question. I don't see how the answer is different for image formats than executable programs. The point is that yes, there are unusual cases where it isn't clear exactly which form is preferred. This is precisely why the current language in the GPL is good: because it allows for human beings to try and make reasoned judgments about it, rather than be boxed in by a needlessly too-narrow technical definition. > There are also variations in usefulness of a .xcf file. Does it have > all the layers still separate, or have some of them been merged and > smoothed? Combining those layers into the final image is often part > of the creative process and is usually not automated. At least, not > the way I do it :) The preferred form for modifications, again, is the *preferred* one. It's the form you would *actually* prefer to use in *modifying* the thing. In general, that's going to be an unflattened .xcf. It is the case that many people make images and then completely destroy the source. This is a shame, and we should stress that it's contrary to the general principles of preserving and providing source. At least in the case of the GPL, it just isn't the preferred form for making modifications, and (again, in the GPL context) I don't think we can allow "I lost track of where the source is" to count as an exception, much less "I deliberately destroyed the source." Thomas
