[tex-live] distribution policy

[Philip TAYLOR in Bolsehle]

Frank Küster wrote:

> Ulrike Fischer <news2 at nililand.de> wrote:

>> That wasn't what I meant. Certainly the graphic (the png or pdf or eps
>> or mps-file) itself should be in the sources of the documentation. But
>> what is with the source of the graphic? 
> 
> I think it should be present.  This is about the freedom to modify
> software, isn't it?  And if I modify the software such that the
> corresponding documentation change requires a slightly different
> graphic, a free software should also provide the source of the
> graphics. Then I can just recreate the graphics with the changes
> needed. 

I know that I am at the other end of the spectrum to Frank
when it comes to the importance of "freedom to modify",
but I cannot help feeling that demanding the source of
an image is really taking things too far.  What if the
source is a series of artifacts that have been photographed ;
should I provide an exact description of each of the artifacts,
including their size and relative position, so that someone
else can re-create the image and then modify it ?

Philip TAYLOR