Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The GPL'ed source contains ugly xpm's that upstream created pixel for > > pixel in Emacs because he knew no better and thought he was only > > making a proof-of-concept implementation anyway. I import the xpm into > > the Gimp, painstakingly separate the raw pixels into reasonable > > layers, then add nifty colors and drop shadows. Finally I merge the > > layers and quantisize the image, then save as xpm again. > > Will I be in violation of the GPL if I distribute it withough *also* > > saving it as xcf and distributing that? > The format you preferred to modify the work in was as a layered > image. Is this not obvious, especially given the work you did in > creating just that layered image? > If you never saved the xpf, then I am disinclined to think this is > ok. Do you mean by that that if I use an editor that does not have a save format that losslessly reproduces all of its internal state, then I can only distribute the output under the GPL if I also ship a revivable core dump of the editor? > I write a bunch of Scheme code in a fancy Scheme system, never saving > my work, using only an editing buffer. When my program is as I like > it, I use the system's "standalone executable" feature to writeout a > binary of the program, and then I quit. Would you think anybody would be comfortable with (functionally) modifying the output of that process? I can show you dozens of people who would be perfectly comfortable with functionally modifying a gif. -- Henning Makholm "I, madam, am the Archchancellor! And I happen to run this University!"