On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100, M�ns Rullg�rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > No, for a photograph the source is the actual physical object you've > made a picture of, so a photograph can never be free. Either this, or > a photograph should be considered as source.
I really, really hope this is sarcasm, or reductio ad absurdum, or something. > In your case, your best bet would probably be to provide the > photograph without the text, or (even better) provide the image in a > more advanced format (e.g. XCF) with the photograph and text in > different layers. Er, reality check? This is the software industry, not the publishing industry. It's a pain to work around obscured data and compression/decompression cycle artifacts when, say, fixing a spelling error in overlaid text, but amateur image manipulators do it all the time. If an image isn't permitted in a source tarball unless there's a color-glossy-magazine level of professionalism in facilitating later modifications, then you might as well toss out 98% of the GUIs in Debian, not to mention 99.5% of closed-source software. It's good to encourage people to use sophisticated workflow when creating images, as when creating software. But we don't call software non-free when it isn't developed using Extreme Programming methodology or UML modeling, not least because these techniques are overkill for most module-scale programming projects. And we shouldn't call images non-free just because they weren't shot Camera RAW, imported to a Photoshop clone, and manipulated losslessly at every stage. Cheers, - Michael
