[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > Precisely when the xcf is the exact source of the actual gif in > question. If the gif has been modified on its own, then the source is > now the combination of both the xcf and the gif.
Would you agree that there could come a point where the gif has been modified enough that the .xcf is no longer relevant source? While I wouldn't say this about a binary, I do think it's reasonable in the case of an image. The analogy of program used to create the image to language used to create a binary breaks down because the boundaries are harder in the case of programming languages. If an original image was created from a .xcf, but for the next 10 years all edits (and we'll assume there are plenty) were done directly to the gif, it seems reasonable to leave out the .xcf at some point. Obviously, how much is enough would be a big question mark, and it isn't reasonable to expect everyone to agree on exactly where that line falls, especially in the abstract. That's why we have judges, after all. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
