Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this argument to all JPEGs?
The freedom to modify the images to suit my
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this argument to all JPEGs?
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 12:28, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this argument
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right. If I create an image and only save it as a JPEG (say I've taken a
picture with a digital camera and then overlayed some text on top of
it), is that sufficient to
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Requiring layered formats for
source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases.
This sort of mindless sophistry accomplishes nothing. Requiring source
does not make programs non-free. Failing to provide source
Daniel Stone wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:51:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
No, not really. I can't reasonably alter the text to fix your spelling
mistake, for example. We should not be forced to put up with a
spelling error just because you couldn't be bothered to provide
source. It's
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What freedom are you trying to
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether a PNG should be considered source or not depends on the
content. If I made a PNG consisting of a white background with a
black rectangle, I probably wouldn't bother to save any other format.
If the image were made up from many elements with
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Requiring layered formats for
source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases.
This sort of mindless sophistry accomplishes nothing. Requiring source
does not make
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Requiring layered formats for
source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases.
This sort of mindless sophistry accomplishes nothing. Requiring source
does not make programs
Scripsit Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How about:
If the author could change something but you can't, he probably hasn't
given you the source?
That is a very good rule of thumb, and really should be everybody's
first test for deciding whether something is source or not.
However, it still
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How does the mechanism used to generate the text on the picture alter
how modifiable the end result is?
But we're not worried about how modifiable the end result is. We're
worried about how the author would prefer to make modifications. Thus
how it's
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100, Måns Rullgård [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
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
No, for a photograph the source is the actual physical object you've
made a picture of, so a photograph can never be free.
No, it's not. The actual physical object is not the preferred form for
making modifications to the work (i.e. the
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:28:44 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether a PNG should be considered source or not depends on the
content. If I made a PNG consisting of a white background with a
black rectangle, I probably wouldn't bother to save any other
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:50:20 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
Suppose I hired an artist to create some artwork for my programs
(logos, icons, etc.), and I was only given PNG files with the
completed images. Would this make the entire package non-free? Of
course I could as the artist for whatever
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:04:36 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
That's, uh, entirely insane.
Maybe it's insane, but could please explain why?
[...]
No. Autogenerated C is not the preferred form for modification, but
nor is it a practical form for modification (in most cases - this is
not always
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:11:38 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
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
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100, Måns Rullgård [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
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:05:38PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Well, I'm a bit surprised, here.
You were the proposal A proposer in GR 2004-004 and the rationale seems
to state that your understanding of both versions of the Social Contract
(the one previous GR 2004-003 and the new one as
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How does the mechanism used to generate the text on the picture alter
how modifiable the end result is?
But we're not worried about how modifiable the end result is.
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:04:36 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
That's, uh, entirely insane.
Maybe it's insane, but could please explain why?
It's not something that's been well discussed within the project, and I
don't think it's an argument you're going
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In fact, starting by filing release critical bugs is likely to
ensure that the opposition is entirely entrenched to begin with.
Why are you so determined to keep fighting strawmen?
We should work with them to change their minds, not start telling
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
If we apply this to a photograph of a circuit board, we find that
the photograph is the source.
Quite possibly not, actually. Consider a 2 layer PCB, FE.
A 20 megabyte binary-only application is non-free, even if the
author wrote and maintains it
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we have very, very different ideas about the goals of free
software. In my world, we ask for source code because the ability to
modify code is fundamental to free software. I'm not quite sure how that
works for you.
I hope that you are never
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In fact, starting by filing release critical bugs is likely to
ensure that the opposition is entirely entrenched to begin with.
Why are you so determined to keep fighting strawmen?
Where's the strawman?
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
If we apply this to a photograph of a circuit board, we find that
the photograph is the source.
Quite possibly not, actually. Consider a 2 layer PCB, FE.
Oh, sorry - I meant to go somewhere with that
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I don't think /my/ preferred form of modification is more special
than the author's, but if nobody but the author is in a reasonable
position to alter the code then I don't think that's free.
If this is because the author is withholding information,
While looking at the gnuplot documentation (trying to figure out
how to make a bar graph) I came across this in the FAQ:
1.6 Legalities
Gnuplot is freeware authored by a collection of volunteers, who cannot
make any legal statement about the compliance or non-compliance of
gnuplot or its uses.
30 matches
Mail list logo
