Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:16:46 +0000 Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us >> removing a large number of packages from Debian. > > I think that these issues are sarge-ignore because of GR2004-004, but > will be release-critical bugs post-Sarge.
That's, uh, entirely insane. >> If a JPEG can be considered "free enough" under some circumstances, >> I'm confused as to why it's not always good enough. > > OK, think of a program. > I give you a file written in C, that can be compiled by gcc into the > binary executable. > > Am I giving you the source code? > Yes, in most cases, I am. Indeed. > But what if the program is a parser generated by Bison? > Now the C code is not source code anymore. > The grammar description is the real source code. Also true. > If C code can be considered "free enough" under some circumstances, why > is it not always good enough? > Because it's not always the "preferred form for modification", that's > why! No. Autogenerated C is not the preferred form for modification, but nor is it a practical form for modification (in most cases - this is not always true). However, in almost all cases it *is* practical to modify a JPEG. Machine-generated C code is fundamentally different to hand-written C code, in the same way that a machine-generated JPEG (for instance, something designed to stress test JPEG decoder algorithms) is fundamentally different to the more common sort. There is no fundamental difference between a JPEG that was derived from a lossless format and one that has always been a JPEG. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
