Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [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.
Yes, there might be such a case, but I would say that a few edits isn't such a case. And that the usual scenario isn't this at all; it's people who simply throw away the xcf or outright refuse to distribute it. > 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. Agreed.
