[WF-General] License stuff. Fun!
Karsten O. Laux [EIT]
klaux at rhrk.uni-kl.de
Sun Apr 14 19:52:58 PDT 2002
On 12 Apr 2002, David Turner wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 07:56, Karsten Laux wrote:
> > > > Reason: The process of combining the different original layers to a
> > > > single plane is definitely a way to 'thwart' any subsequent modifications
> > > > of the image content. Despite the fact that the visual information is the
> > > > same, the possibilities to edit the image are dramatically limited in
> > > > comparison to the original layered image.
> > > >
> > > > The situation is comparable to TeX v. Postscript format. You may be able
> > > > to change a postscript file to fit your needs, but this is very hard, if
> > > > not impossible. So in my eyes the layered image is comparable to the
> > > > LaTeX source, while the combined image as png is comparable to the
> > > > rendered postscript file.
> > >
> > > But postscript is clearly (raytracer hacks asside) an output-only
> > > format, while people edit pngs all the time and don't complain about it.
> > >
> > OK, sure you can edit images contained in png files. But I was very well
> > aware of the postscript format, when making the above comparism. Postscript
> > is just ASCII and you can edit it using even the simplest text editor, and an
> > png file contains just a single layered bitmap and you can edit these pixels
> > using even the simplest pixel editor.
> > But neither postscript, nor the png contain any information about the
> > _structure_ or _composition_ of the original.
> > Editing a png is fine, if the original just contained one layer, but as soon
> > as the image is composed from several layers, the png is just a rendering
> > without the possibility to edit the image _content_.
> > Content in the case of a layered image is not just the pixel values, but in
> > also provides structure information like layer ordering, layer masks, layer
> > transparency.
> I would prefer to work from a layered xcf than to work from a
> non-layered png. But that does not make png Opaque. Here's a quote from
> the GFDL:
> A "Transparent" copy of the Document means ... contents can be viewed
> and edited directly and straightforwardly with a ... (for images
> composed of pixels) generic paint program.
> I don't think anyone could doubt that png fits that definition.
> Another quote:
> Opaque formats include PostScript ....
> It is clear that PS does *not* fit that definition.
> If you like, you may argue that the GFDL is broken -- but I didn't see
> any comments from you on version 1.2. But you cannot argue that png is
> not transparent.
> And even if I couldn't read legalese, I would trust Eben Moglen, who is
> both a lawyer and a programmer over Karsten Laux, who is merely a
> programmer and is far from disinterested.
Alistair did understand what I was talking about, you did not.
klaux at rhrk.uni-kl.de
More information about the General