On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:47:58 +0000 (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:

> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:29:15 +0000 (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> > > It seems impractical, but the definition of Object Form and the terms
> > > for modified versions make it look to me like it's avoidable by loading
> > > the graphic at run-time instead of compiling it into an executable.
> > 
> > Only if those graphics files are directly loadable from their Source
> > form. [...]
> Otherwise, you make a modified work and the meanings of Source Data,
> Author and Object Form change, as far as I can see.  Silly, but helpful.

If, for any good reason, you decide to go on modifying a work in a form
different from the original "Source Data" form, then the "Source Data"
for the modified work is really the new form.  This is not silly, and
it's exactly the way the GPL definition of source code is intended to
act, AFAICT.  This is one of the aspects where the DSL is very similar
to the GNU GPL.
I am under the impression that this is not the case you are referring

If, on the other hand, you make a dummy modification to an "Object
Form" just to claim that it is "Source Data", then I think that you are
cheating with the license...  For instance, I would not directly modify
a PNG image compiled from SVG, unless I really decide to go on
maintaining the image in PNG format.
I don't think you are proposing to cheat the license, are you?

Mmmmh, it seems that I am left without a convincing interpretation of
your sentence: I give up, could you please elaborate? 

 New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp7NbLGXZvyr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to