Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The history you were considering was a .xcf (or the like), which > > someone then modified a few parts of in its gif output. > > "A few parts" was never in the history I am talking about. Someone > distributed a picture as .xcf and a flattened .gif; I wanted to change > the way the picture looked, so I edited the gif. Simple as that, and > no mention of "a few parts" at all.
In such a case, you are certainly within your rights, and if it's gpl'd you must distribute the complete source: which is the xcf and the modified gif. > However, you're arguing that I must not *distribute* the modified > machine language unless I can somehow invent a high-level source that > happens to produce my modified machine language, right? Nope, I did not say that. > > So far you don't understand my interpretation, because you misstate it > > each time you try and reproduce it.... > > In that case your interpretation has been stated very hazily. Do you, > or do you not, state that an xcf is somehow the source of a modified > image that looks wildly different from anything that can be produced > by automatic means using the xcf? It is *partially* the source. You have steadfastly refused to address the parallel case of a program, and I think it is this refusal that is contributing to your confusion about my position.
