3 ms·

Coming soon to the GIMP. And Krita. And... ?

by athom 16y ago

athom 16y ago
Wow, somebody was not amused. No clue why...
- A1kmm 16y ago
  Both are GPLd programs, most likely with copyright ownership spread across large numbers of contributors in many countries. The GPL says you can't distribute the program unless you include the complete source code. To legally distribute a version of a GPLd image manipulation program with a closed-source currency detection module in it, you would need to get every person who holds copyright in that program to agree - probably an impossible task given many probably feel strongly against this kind of restriction. Alternatively, it might be possible to get a law passed to exempt distributors from that terms of the license - but that would only apply in one country, and it would also need to override the 'freedom or death' term of the GPL. Even if there was a Free / Open Source currency detection engine, I doubt it would be included in the projects unless it became a legal requirement.
  - athom 16y ago
    Which was actually my point. I don't see anyone willingly adding a feature to actually restrict functionality the way a currency detection engine would/does. At least, in an open source project, I think there would be enough resistance from contributors to keep such components from becoming standard features. This I consider a good thing about the GIMP, Krita, and any/every other FOSS graphics package out there. That said, it does present a pretty little puzzle for the FOSS community. Given governments' recent roles in expanding the reach of FOSS software, I don't think we can ignore the question of what happens when and where the interests of the state conflict with those of the FOSS community. Here, specifically, we have a case where a government may desire a "feature" anathema to the community, but likely can't force the community to accept such a requirement. What they might be able to do is outlaw any version of the package which does not incorporate the restriction. How effectively can could they enforce it? Not much, perhaps, right now, but we'd be fooling ourselves to think they never could. It's all but certain they're going to keep trying, even if it proves utterly impossible. Thank you for responding, A1kmm. This is what I was really hoping to see: some actual discussion of the point. In any case, I apologize for offending whoever downmodded me. I'll try not to be quite so snarky in future.

Coming soon to the GIMP. And Krita. And... ?

by athom 16y ago

Coming soon to the GIMP. And Krita. And... ?

athom 16y ago

Wow, somebody was not amused. No clue why...

A1kmm 16y ago
Both are GPLd programs, most likely with copyright ownership spread across large numbers of contributors in many countries. The GPL says you can't distribute the program unless you include the complete source code. To legally distribute a version of a GPLd image manipulation program with a closed-source currency detection module in it, you would need to get every person who holds copyright in that program to agree - probably an impossible task given many probably feel strongly against this kind of restriction. Alternatively, it might be possible to get a law passed to exempt distributors from that terms of the license - but that would only apply in one country, and it would also need to override the 'freedom or death' term of the GPL. Even if there was a Free / Open Source currency detection engine, I doubt it would be included in the projects unless it became a legal requirement.
- athom 16y ago
  Which was actually my point. I don't see anyone willingly adding a feature to actually restrict functionality the way a currency detection engine would/does. At least, in an open source project, I think there would be enough resistance from contributors to keep such components from becoming standard features. This I consider a good thing about the GIMP, Krita, and any/every other FOSS graphics package out there. That said, it does present a pretty little puzzle for the FOSS community. Given governments' recent roles in expanding the reach of FOSS software, I don't think we can ignore the question of what happens when and where the interests of the state conflict with those of the FOSS community. Here, specifically, we have a case where a government may desire a "feature" anathema to the community, but likely can't force the community to accept such a requirement. What they might be able to do is outlaw any version of the package which does not incorporate the restriction. How effectively can could they enforce it? Not much, perhaps, right now, but we'd be fooling ourselves to think they never could. It's all but certain they're going to keep trying, even if it proves utterly impossible. Thank you for responding, A1kmm. This is what I was really hoping to see: some actual discussion of the point. In any case, I apologize for offending whoever downmodded me. I'll try not to be quite so snarky in future.