Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you're saying that for the case where the font was generated by hand > using a hex editor, the bitmap file itself is the source code. [And, > perhaps not by chance, it was "the preferred form for making changes".]
Naw, because there are many equivalent file formats for a bitmap font. I don't care which format it was edited in (that's why the GPL definition loses here). *Any* non-lossy format for editing the bitmap will do; perhaps it should be required that it's an open format. Binary code, you see, is a lossy translation of the source code. Source code contains a lot more information than the binaries do. By contrast, alternative bitmap formats for a font generally all contain exactly the same information, and it doesn't matter to me at all which one is distributed. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
