[tex-live] distribution policy

[Zdenek Wagner]

2008/9/20 Philip TAYLOR  in Bolsehle <Ralf.Kahle at t-online.de>:
>
>
> 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 ?
>
Imagine that the image is a gnuplot graph. The data for the graph were
calculated by the Octave program that consists of 100+ function files
and a main Octave script that was generated automatically by Perl. (I
have such images.) Do you really want that instead of EPS exported
from gnuplot? And what if the graph is generated by some commercial
SW? If you want to change it, you have the TeX source and the EPS, you
can always make your own graphic

> Philip TAYLOR
>



-- 
Zdeněk Wagner
http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/
http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz