Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What sorts of issues with JPEGs? We should have available and > distribute the prefered form for modification for them as well. That > is, whatever form upstream actually uses when upstream wants to modify > the JPEG. In some cases, this will just be a JPEG. In others, it will > be an XCF, SVG or something else entirely.
If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us removing a large number of packages from Debian. However, even ignoring that, I think your definition leads to some strangeness. It suggests that a JPEG is DFSG-free in and of itself in some cases, but that the existence of a lossless representation of that picture renders the JPEG non-free unless it's distributed with that lossless representation. If I delete the only copy of the lossless picture, is the JPEG now source? If a JPEG can be considered "free enough" under some circumstances, I'm confused as to why it's not always good enough. > While there may be a better definition of source code than the > "prefered form for modification," I haven't seen it yet. I haven't tried to formulate a precise definition yet, but I think that the GPL's definition is stricter than we should require in general. We don't have the DFSG because they provide philosophical freedoms - we have the DFSG because they allow people to engage in practical activities. If a piece of software allows someone to assert their freedom to perform those acts without onerous restrictions, then it ought to be free from a DFSG standpoint. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
