[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > Again, again, again, I'm not interested here in the definition of > "free" or "proprietary"; just with the copyleft. In the context of > the copyleft, if you destroy the source, the object code does not > somehow mutate into source, and as a result the object code simply > cannot be part of a copylefted program. I can see no good reason > for distinguishing C code from .xcf files here.
The difference is that a gif is a lot richer than binary software, in the sense of humans being able to do stuff with it. I can certainly see the argument that under certain circumstances a gif would be considered a binary and something like a .xcf would be required source (for copyleft). But I think it's quite a stretch to say that that's always the case. That's exactly why the phrase "preferred form" is so important. Some of the boundary cases would have to be decided on a situational basis; that's not a reason to say that gifs can't be copyleft unless they have accompanying source. I admit to being a bit confused about the positions everyone's taking in this thread, though, so I may not be responding precisely to your point. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
