On Wednesday 02 March 2005 12:28, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
> >> adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this argument to all JPEGs?
> >
> > The freedom to modify the images to suit my purposes, of course. See
> > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html
>
> Right. If I create an image and only save it as a JPEG (say I've taken a
> picture with a digital camera and then overlayed some text on top of
> it), is that sufficient to satisfy DFSG 1?
This has two sides:
1) Is the JPEG your "source"? If you e.g. have edited in the gimp, saved it
as .xcf (with the text in a separate layer) probably not. If you have e.g.
run it through an automated script, adding attribution ("photographed by ...
at ...") probably yes.
2) Do you find someone who is interested in "maintaining" it within Debian and
does he accept the JPEG as source?
Of course this example falls short of further aspects:
* If a photographer adds attributions into the JPEG, what would he think if
they are removed (e.g. by cropping the image)?
* If the picture contains not a single line of text at the bottom but complex
annotations of the picture, it seems stupid to write it directly into the
JPEG. Is this worse than not using (possible superfluous) #defines for
register values?
Regards, Daivd
--
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir Ãber ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
