Should the Community Art Team mandate the usage of Free tools for submissions?

[smartboyathome]

Well, this discussion was going on on the Ubuntu art mailing list, and I thought I would see what you guys (the users) think of it.

The original e-mail by Cory:

This is something I thought about before but was reminded of so here goes.


I believe that *all* submissions for official art or projects under the
art team be created with free tools.

No more wallpapers done with Photoshop and the like for instance. All
submissions done with free formats also. All images would be PNG/SVG.

There's something flawed about promoting a free OS and creating it's
look with another. (Win/OSX) My personal philosophy is "use the right
tool for the job" and our tools are plenty capable.

Might be a bit of zealotry but that's my proposal.


-Cory K.

So, what do you guys think? Would you be for this proposal, or against it? I'm really interested to see what you think. :)

[dragos240]

Most free things are great, but there are non-free things (not meaning free as in beer, free as in freedom.), that some people like me still need. So no.

[helloyo]

Where's the freedom?

[aysiu]

I would say people should be encouraged to use Free tools, but it shouldn't be a necessity. One of the things I like about Ubuntu is its commitment to Free software but its ability to compromise when necessary. It's a good balance between Debian (totally Free only!) and PCLinuxOS (proprietary's cool with us).

[bashveank]

How would you force them?
How would you ensure that forcing them doesn't drive the majority of the user base away?

[RaiCoss]

I kind of see their point, but it's pretty much a moment of madness. There are certain things that Photoshop can do that GIMP can't for instance. And if you where to broaden the argument to free software in general then certainly no. For instance Brasero dosen't support .NRG files. Nero Linux does. Open source graphics drivers tend to suck compared to closed source versions (with maybe the exception of ATi). And so on....

[swoll1980]

That's the most asinine thing I ever heard. People shouldn't be forced to use a program they don't feel comfortable with in order to participate. Doesn't either this forum, or the Ubuntu website use Microsoft servers. I think one of them does, or did at one time. I'm pretty sure the forum software here is closed source, and launchpad it's self. The whole E-Mail is just ridiculous

[lykwydchykyn]

Free formats -- absolutely.
Free tools -- I wouldn't get dogmatic about it, but it'd be nice if only from the "eat your own dogfood" perspective. What better way to improve these apps than to have people involved in creating a distro using them?

[kerry_s]

i think people should use what they want, limiting the choices is not freedom, it's dictatorship.
you might as well say "you can use what you want, as long its what i use."
software is no different people have favorites, i'd rather use what i like or nothing at all.

[lisati]

Two concerns come to mind:

Where would the freedom of choice be?
If I need to get some work done "yesterday", and the best tool for the job is one I have to pay for, insisting on "free only" only could be problematical.

[Icehuck]

When they use proprietary software or Windows to design a Linux distribution they just discredit themselves. Open source isn't even good enough to be used to design their OS, so why should anyone use it.

Hey, but we are all about freedom, so whatever :P

[jdong]

Well, depends on the context. Personally in the course of any given day I use everything from Solaris 9, RHEL, Fedora, OS X, Windows XP, Ubuntu, to Debian. I use natural apps on each platform to get my work done. What if someone came up to me and said "We're taking your {Ubuntu membership, MOTU status, FC position} away because you spend less than half of your time using Ubuntu"? I'd probably feel extremely upset amongst other things. What platform and software I choose to use shouldn't be material to judge me.


However, if I were working with the Artwork team and contribute a PNG image created by Photoshop and someone wanted to modify it, that's a different situation. Assuming only Photoshop can modify its files, what I am doing is uncollaborative and probably the kind of thing that made Corey deliver his rant.

[jflaker]

free software drives the Linux distributions, but you are certainly not forced into using free software. The trick to the whole thing is finding "commercial" software that is developed for Linux, which is few and far in between.

Free does not necessarily mean no charge, it means freedom as in:
*Freedom to SHARE with others....This would be "pirating" with commercial software, with Free Open Source Software, sharing is not only legal, but it is encouraged.
*Freedom to look at the underlying code base
*Freedom to improve on the application if you have the skills to do so
*Freedom to PARTICIPATE in many parts of the applications (documentation, translation to YOUR language, coding, distribution, advertising, etc)
*Freedom to customize the application to meet your specific needs
*Freedom to be free from restrictive licensing which forces you to buy another box just because you have two or three computers in your house.


GIMP is moving to be the replacement for Adobe, which if you wanted to put that on 3 computers in your house, would cost you well over $2000 with sales taxes and separate add-ons/add-ins.

Free is not just money but freedom from restrictions, such is the saying "free, not as in free beer, but freedom"

[Rokurosv]

People shouldn't be forced to use free software. If people can create a product of higher quality with Photoshop instead of Gimp, let them.

[Peasantoid]

True freedom: The freedom to use whatever the hell you want.

[jmore9]

If you are going to use open source operating system you should strive to use the apps and programs that are for that operating system. Sometimes there is no replacement say in linux for a windows program , then yes you should co mingle.

But if all you want to do is run windows apps in linux whats the point they were designed for windows , should be run in windows.

I have a windows box and a ubuntu box. I run very few only 1 window app on linux. And that is an web video player that there is no linux version for.

I like the huge amount of software that is avaiable for linux compared to windows. I spent about 1500.00 dollars when winxp 1st came out for all the software i needed.

I have spent nothing , except donating some funds to certain projects that i am interested in, in linux.

[days_of_ruin]

We all laughed when microsoft used macs to make their ads.
And no you don't have the freedom to automatically get your art included with ubuntu anyway. Someone !you chooses what gets in why shouldn't they have this requirement?

[RiceMonster]

Well this situation makes things different. Normally, I'd just say "You what works for you", but Ubuntu claims to be all about free software, so I think that's sort undermines that to use proprietary stuff. Plus, shouldn't stuff for Ubuntu be developed on Ubuntu? I think it looks bad if they can't even make their own stuff on their own OS.

[Icehuck]

Well this situation makes things different. Normally, I'd just say "You what works for you", but Ubuntu claims to be all about free software, so I think that's sort undermines that to use proprietary stuff. Plus, shouldn't stuff for Ubuntu be developed on Ubuntu? I think it looks bad if they can't even make their own stuff on their own OS.

I'm waiting for Microsoft to point this out.

[samjh]

Well this situation makes things different. Normally, I'd just say "You what works for you", but Ubuntu claims to be all about free software, so I think that's sort undermines that to use proprietary stuff. Plus, shouldn't stuff for Ubuntu be developed on Ubuntu? I think it looks bad if they can't even make their own stuff on their own OS.

Why should it?

Do all Ford employees drive Fords? Do all Boeing engineers fly Boeing planes? Do all Dulux employees paint their house using Dulux paints?

Ubuntu developers are under no obligation to use ONLY Ubuntu to develop for Ubuntu. If Photoshop does a better job than GIMP, why not use Photoshop?

Microsoft has been caught out using Macs for business presentations. Big whoop.

[BGFG]

i would disagree with GIMP or INkscape only... but then both those projects are fervently working towards being on par/surpassing proprietary tools.
If it's better for team development then let the artists decide, but forcing ? no.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

As for not allowing Ubuntu artwork (icons, wallpapers, etc) to be made with non-free software like Photoshop how could such a rule even be enforced? I'm not a computer art expert but if person A accused person B of using Photoshop to make a wallpaper and person B denied it and claimed that he used GIMP how could person A ever prove that person B actually did use Photoshop? Unless it was an obvious use of some tool or brush stroke that was only available in Photoshop. But even though GIMP may not be able to do as much as Photoshop I'm sure that a talented enough GIMP user could do anything that a Photoshop user could do. It just might take him longer to do it.

[smartboyathome]

As for not allowing Ubuntu artwork (icons, wallpapers, etc) to be made with non-free software like Photoshop how could such a rule even be enforced? I'm not a computer art expert but if person A accused person B of using Photoshop to make a wallpaper and person B denied it and claimed that he used GIMP how could person A ever prove that person B actually did use Photoshop? Unless it was an obvious use of some tool or brush stroke that was only available in Photoshop. But even though GIMP may not be able to do as much as Photoshop I'm sure that a talented enough GIMP user could do anything that a Photoshop user could do. It just might take him longer to do it.

Metadata. If you look at the picture's metadata, there will be a little bit that shows that it was made in Photoshop.

[pbpersson]

I believe that when building a product such as Ubuntu - which we claim includes everything we would ever need - every effort should be made to USE the tools in Ubuntu.

If we find it necessary to use applications under Windows in order to function then it is a wake up call to get busy and produce those tools in Ubuntu.

That would be my point of view. If we are forced to use Windows it highlights the deficiencies in Ubuntu that need to be addressed.

[-grubby]

If it produces the same result, who cares? Let them use what they want. It doesn't affect anybody but the person using it.

[tubezninja]

Metadata. If you look at the picture's metadata, there will be a little bit that shows that it was made in Photoshop.


If any group I participate in were to place such onerous requirements on any contributions one is allowed to make, then my involvement in and contributions to that group would promptly end.

The fact remains that people who contribute to Ubuntu are volunteers. They give their time to make contributions to the project, in order to better it. Sometimes that means using platforms that aren't entirely FOSS. That doesn't necessarily meant the tools Ubuntu provides or has available are inferior, nor does it mean that the contributions by people using non-free tools aren't worthy of inclusion. Contributors can have a number of reasons for using the tools they do. Some of us grew up using Photoshop, and thus can work faster on it. Others find no philosophical problem with developing open source tools on a Mac or Windows system.

You can count me as one of those people. You don't want me contributing to a project or using your software because I don't use exclusively FOSS resources? Fine with me, I'll just go elsewhere. Good luck retaining talented people who will continue the project's momentum.

I'm sorry, but requiring this hyper-loyalty to FOSS, even so much as to say that the contributions should not be... "contaminated" by using non free resources, is a bit over the top.

[Giant Speck]

Wouldn't forcing people to use free software applications actually stifle freedom?

I'm not going to choose an open-source program specifically and solely because it is open-source. I'm going to choose it because it works. If there is a proprietary application that works better than the open-source program, and it's low-cost, I will use it instead.

I didn't start using Ubuntu to be part of some open-source, free software movement. I started using it because I thought it was interesting. If I was really going to devote my life to FOSS-only software, I would have uninstalled Windows in February 2008.

[Icehuck]

If it produces the same result, who cares? Let them use what they want. It doesn't affect anybody but the person using it.

It means they are falsely stating their claims. They claim the following on the Ubuntu.com webpage


"Ubuntu is a community developed, Linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more."

"With Ubuntu Desktop Edition you can surf the web, read email, create documents and spreadsheets, edit images and much more. Ubuntu has a fast and easy graphical installer right on the Desktop CD. On a typical computer the installation should take you less than 25 minutes. "

Which isn't true since there are people using photoshop or windows to create aspects of the OS. I take this as, "Were lying to you to get you to use our software, it really doesn't have everything you need."

Yes I know it's community developed and you can't force someone to use FOSS or Ubuntu to do the work. However; you can't change the facts.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

Metadata. If you look at the picture's metadata, there will be a little bit that shows that it was made in Photoshop.
True, but if a person wanted to be sneaky he could make the picture with Photoshop, take a screenshot of it with GIMP, and than save it. Thus erasing any metadata that mentioned Photoshop.

[tubezninja]

It means they are falsely stating their claims.


it means nothing of the sort.

When someone uses non-Ubuntu tools, it simply means they are excercising their freedom to use what they want to ensure that you can use what you want.


But lets go with this premise. How far should we take it? CUPS wasn't originally developed on ubuntu, nor was it originally developed on an entirely free platform. Should it be removed, and ubuntu-users not be allowed to print until someone comes up with an ubuntu-grown solution then?

How about webkit? Or Firefox for that matter? I mean, not ALL of Firefox's developers are on linux, are they?

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I think the problem Cory sees is more along the lines of the official artwork and those documents saying "Ubuntu has all the software one needs..." They could be done with open source tools, generally quite easily, but they aren't.
It's not that the media people should abolish all non-free tools and formats and start, but they should definitely consider their use negative points in some scenarios.
Plain and simple: Using proprietary stuff to preach free software rubs off really, really poorly. I don't see how you guys find that difficult to understand. Further, the suggestion isn't to block anyone from trying to contribute; it's to say "we should consider non-free source files uglier than over-compressed 800x600 gradient wallpapers and not use them as a result of said eye-burning ugliness."

Further, as Cory mentions, using proprietary formats (which are created by many non-free programs) breaks that whole open source thing. It doesn't help when the source files are inaccessable. It's a bit like distributing a Windows binary and calling it open source, except in this case the software to unlock it is in the realm of $600.

[tubezninja]

Plain and simple: Using proprietary stuff to preach free software rubs off really, really poorly.
I don't see how you guys find that difficult to understand.

Maybe it's because I was brought into FOSS understanding that "free" typically also implied "without restrictions." I see any restrictions or criticism of whether I mix and match my software types as an intrusion into how I am allowed to best use the tools that suit me effectively. And to me, that rubs off really, really poorly.



Further, the suggestion isn't to block anyone from trying to contribute;

To me, placing restrictions on what resources one can use to create the content regardless of whether the quality is good or not, does narrow down who can contribute.

[defaultusername]

FOSS Richard Stallman-style is a case of ideology. EULAs are not corrupt. Adobe employs many hard-working programmers to work on Photoshop -- all of whom expect a paycheck. nVidia, ATI, Intel, etc., are all just in exercising their freedom to keep trade secrets from competitors, to service their primary customer base, and to support their products however they see fit. In the same way, you're perfectly free to not use/buy their products. Capitalism offers many choices. Regulation is where it all goes sour. Who has the moral authority to say that compensation for programmers is wrong?

I think FOSS advocates kind of fly in the face of pragmatism and common sense sometimes in order to posit themselves as "ethical" computer users.

[sekinto]

I believe free and non-free tools can coexist peacefully. We shouldn't chase developers away because they want to develop with non-free tools, if these people can develop faster with these non-free tools then development will be better and the free tools will be able to fully replace the non-free tools faster. Telling graphic designers to use GIMP instead of Photoshop when they are more productive with Photoshop is being counter-productive. The only thing that matters is that the final content is in open formats (if someone were to make some documentation in Microsoft Office, it should still be exported as an ODT or PDF file instead of a DOC file).

[samjh]

It means they are falsely stating their claims.

...

there are people using photoshop or windows to create aspects of the OS. I take this as, "Were lying to you to get you to use our software, it really doesn't have everything you need."

Yes I know it's community developed and you can't force someone to use FOSS or Ubuntu to do the work. However; you can't change the facts.Trying to say that Canonical is "falsely stating their claim" because they suggest that Ubuntu has everything we need to "surf the web, read email, create documents and spreadsheets, edit images and much more", but some individual developers choose to use non-Ubuntu tools to create artwork, is ridiculous.

Ubuntu has everything we need to "surf the web, read email, create documents and spreadsheets, edit images and much more". But it doesn't have everything we could ever want - nor does it claim to. And if Photoshop does a better job than GIMP, who is to prevent an artist from using Photoshop to create content for Ubuntu? If MS Office does a better job than OpenOffice, why shouldn't users use MS Office to write material for Ubuntu?

"Need" and "want" are two different things, as are promises and puffery.

If you find a 4-door 5-seat car marketed as being "roomy" (plenty of car manufacturers make just such a claim), but find that it can't accommodate five obese adults, will you complain to the manufacturer that their advertisement is misleading? If a chocolate advertisement said it was "delicious" but you disagree, will you file a complaint for false advertising? Be real.

[pbpersson]

Perhaps the following quote on the Ubuntu web site:

"It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more."

means that Ubuntu contains all the applications the READER needs - but clearly not the people who wrote it. They need to use Windows applications on a regular basis to create the artwork in Ubuntu. Yeah, that makes sense.

[samjh]

Perhaps the following quote on the Ubuntu web site:

"It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more."

means that Ubuntu contains all the applications the READER needs - but clearly not the people who wrote it. They need to use Windows applications on a regular basis to create the artwork in Ubuntu. Yeah, that makes sense.

Firstly, it's advertising. Treat it as such. Caveat emptor - buyer beware!

Secondly, there is a difference between need and want. Sure, people could use GIMP to (for example) create artwork, but if Photoshop does it quicker, why not use Photoshop? Time and effort are valuable. Contributors to Ubuntu are largely volunteers. I'm not going to waste my time sweating out 5 hours on GIMP to create artwork when the same thing could be made in Photoshop in 3 hours! (I'm not an artist, so this is just an arbitrary example.)

Thirdly, the line said "you need", not "we need". It's directed at the reader. Yes, it does make sense. And no, they don't "need" to "use Windows applications on a regular basis" (how do we know that anyway? Are we sure they don't use Mac applications? How do we know that they don't use GIMP or other FOSS applications?); some just find it easier to use non-FOSS applications to do what they could do using FOSS applications.

As a final remark, I would ENCOURAGE using FOSS tools to develop content for Ubuntu, but mandating it is not a good idea.

[koenn]

I think the problem Cory sees is more along the lines of the official artwork and those documents saying "Ubuntu has all the software one needs..." They could be done with open source tools, generally quite easily, but they aren't.
It's not that the media people should abolish all non-free tools and formats and start, but they should definitely consider their use negative points in some scenarios.
Plain and simple: Using proprietary stuff to preach free software rubs off really, really poorly.

Further, as Cory mentions, using proprietary formats (which are created by many non-free programs) breaks that whole open source thing.


Free formats -- absolutely.
Free tools -- I wouldn't get dogmatic about it, but it'd be nice if only from the "eat your own dogfood" perspective. What better way to improve these apps than to have people involved in creating a distro using them?

What these guys said.

[koenn]

FOSS Richard Stallman-style is a case of ideology. EULAs are not corrupt. Adobe employs many hard-working programmers to work on Photoshop -- all of whom expect a paycheck. nVidia, ATI, Intel, etc., are all just in exercising their freedom to keep trade secrets from competitors, to service their primary customer base, and to support their products however they see fit. In the same way, you're perfectly free to not use/buy their products. Capitalism offers many choices. Regulation is where it all goes sour. Who has the moral authority to say that compensation for programmers is wrong?

I think FOSS advocates kind of fly in the face of pragmatism and common sense sometimes in order to posit themselves as "ethical" computer users.
you should probably go read up on Free software etc before you post such things. An opinion based in reality carries more weight.

[Tamlynmac]

The use of Non-FOSS tools to support a FOSS project seems hypocritical. It implies a need for non-FOSS involvement in an effort to assure task completion. When preaching freedom, should we not support freedom? If the choice is to use proprietary tools, then how does one promote FOSS?

Compromising integrity in an effort to support freedom, may eventually result in the loss of both. Solutions are the usually the result of effort. If by compromising those efforts one risks issues with perception or integrity - is it worth the risk? Logic suggests that if one truly believes in FOSS, then they should support it.

Perhaps the misconception is in the use of proprietary software, as a choice. I doubt many would argue that using proprietary software should be condemned, only that when promoting FOSS - doesn't it just make sense to use FOSS? You may only get one chance to make an impression and perception could adversely affect that opportunity.

Just my $0.02

[p_quarles]

It implies a need for non-FOSS involvement in an effort to assure task completion.

Actually, it just implies that the vast majority of professional (and amateur) graphical artists available to produce high-quality desktop artwork use Photoshop. This also happens to be an indisputable fact.

You know, it's like Linus says: the spirit of open source is DIY. Not enough GNU/Linux artwork being produced with free/libre design software? Make your own!

The idea that contributions to a free project, however, have to use a certain set of tools is really antithetical to the principle of openness. Like jdong said, if it's an issue of formats, then you have a real case, but telling people to use GIMP instead of Photoshop just to drive home the point that F/LOSS can do "everything" is evangelism rather than freedom.

[john_spiral]

how about Photoshop under WINE? would that be alright?

[smartboyathome]

how about Photoshop under WINE? would that be alright?

Using any proprietary program is discouraged, even if it is run on Ubuntu.

[cardinals_fan]

I don't think that free tools are a must, but free formats are essential to allow collaboration.

[roberto.eiberle]

only free software and only free no-name hardware. Gimp is great but still has some way to go before it can compare to photoshop, so you cannot expect professionals to use it as their everyday tool or to learn its tricks just to make a contribution. On the other hand, the occasional user who uses 2% of the capacities of either program is perfectly served with gimp and will anyhow have to relearn the program the next time he uses it.

[benj1]

first thing id echo what other people are saying, use what program you want just as long as its saved in an appropriate open format.

second i dont thing it would be good for open sourced apps, if people were forced to use it to the exclusion of closed source apps, development would basically be in isolation from the dominating closed source apps, how are we going to attract people to open source if open source app X still hasn't implemented feature Y from closed app X because no one from the open source community has used said program so isnt aware of the feature.

third where does it stop, if i used closed source video drivers does that preclude me, what about an app compiled on a closed source compiler?

im sure if you took everything from ubuntu that wasn't originally written on a linux system you wouldn't have a funcyional system (eg gnu tools pre 1990)

[Dragonbite]

Well, this discussion was going on on the Ubuntu art mailing list, and I thought I would see what you guys (the users) think of it.

The original e-mail by Cory:


So, what do you guys think? Would you be for this proposal, or against it? I'm really interested to see what you think. :)

The very nature that they are becoming involved shows an interest in Ubuntu so their "loyalty" should not be questioned.

Something like this feels like it goes against the openness of Open Source and the philosophy behind it.

Not to mention, if you cannot do what you want/need with Open Source apps then those apps need to be improved and that needs to be passed back to the project's developers but that should not disallow one to use the tools.

[forrestcupp]

Lol.

"Forced Freedom"

Now there's a good concept. :lol:

[JohnFH]

I think I agree with the OP. I don't feel good that the making of Ubuntu has involved tools that are not free - that is just not right at all. I feel it's contaminated with the effects of proprietory software even though it doesn't include such software in the final distribution. Where will it all lead? Soon we'll see a Photo-buntu distribution being shipped with Photoshop and there will be a charge for it obviously. Then it's only a small step before Ubuntu is charged for. Stop the contamination with paid software now! It's not any better anyway. GIMP is free, so let's encourage people to use it and then soon it will take over the world in terms of photo-editing!

Along the same lines I'd say that anyone who uses proprietory software along with Ubuntu should not be allowed to use these forums. Yes you read that right! So if you paid for a web browser and used that to surf Ubuntu Forums, then Ubuntu Forums should block you for using paid software! That will send the right message to encourage everyone to use proper free software. Also if it were possible (currently isn't I don't think) then this site should also block everyone who uses proprietory graphics drivers.

We all know that anyone and any company that sells software rather than gives it away is completely evil and corrupt and shouldn't be trusted.

Get my point? I fear some people won't ...

Warning - this is all tongue-in-cheek!

[billgoldberg]

Well it's kind of a slap in the face of Ubuntu that stuff for it are being made on other operating systems.

I think it should be encouraged.

[forrestcupp]

Along the same lines I'd say that anyone who uses proprietory software along with Ubuntu should not be allowed to use these forums. Yes you read that right! So if you paid for a web browser and used that to surf Ubuntu Forums, then Ubuntu Forums should block you for using paid software! That will send the right message to encourage everyone to use proper free software. Also if it were possible (currently isn't I don't think) then this site should also block everyone who uses proprietory graphics drivers.

We all know that anyone and any company that sells software rather than gives it away is completely evil and corrupt and shouldn't be trusted.

Get my point? I fear some people won't ...

Warning - this is all tongue-in-cheek!
I didn't see your hidden message until I clicked to quote you. I'm glad you're being sarcastic.

[JohnFH]

I didn't see your hidden message until I clicked to quote you. I'm glad you're being sarcastic.

So you agree then? ;)

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Well, here you go. Rather than continue to go on about a thought which was already curbed by feedback, here's the end result:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-art/2009-April/009777.html

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Documentation/Software

There is a major difference between browsing the forums and contributing artwork to the product, though. Nobody is forced to contribute artwork, and contributions do have to be licensed appropriately already so it isn't too much to ask that they please be nice and open :)

[MetalMusicAddict]

Well, depends on the context. Personally in the course of any given day I use everything from Solaris 9, RHEL, Fedora, OS X, Windows XP, Ubuntu, to Debian. I use natural apps on each platform to get my work done. What if someone came up to me and said "We're taking your {Ubuntu membership, MOTU status, FC position} away because you spend less than half of your time using Ubuntu"? I'd probably feel extremely upset amongst other things. What platform and software I choose to use shouldn't be material to judge me.


However, if I were working with the Artwork team and contribute a PNG image created by Photoshop and someone wanted to modify it, that's a different situation. Assuming only Photoshop can modify its files, what I am doing is uncollaborative and probably the kind of thing that made Cory deliver his rant.

Exactly. It's ALL about context. And it's no rant at all. It's simply a proposal. ;)

This is a discussion between the Community Art Team (and I use that loosely because we need to get our act together) as to whether or not we mandate free tools be used on submissions to be considered for official art.

You want full context and really wanna be involved in the community art team? Read the thread (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-art/2009-April/009727.html) and join the list (https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art).

[Hyper Tails]

not really

[MetalMusicAddict]

And BTW, the title here is a bit sensationalist. It should read: "Should the Community Art Team mandate the usage of free tools for submissions?"

Smartboy, you should know better.

[bp1509]

100% for cory's idea.

[MetalMusicAddict]

The very nature that they are becoming involved shows an interest in Ubuntu so their "loyalty" should not be questioned.

Something like this feels like it goes against the openness of Open Source and the philosophy behind it.

This is addressed on the list.

Not to mention, if you cannot do what you want/need with Open Source apps then those apps need to be improved and that needs to be passed back to the project's developers but that should not disallow one to use the tools.
Exactly, but, if people aren't using the tools, how can they give that feedback to the app developers? (this is also addressed on the list)

In the end, being exclusionary is fine. Why wouldn't it be? You cannot accommodate everyone. If the team wants it, because of philosophy or what have you, so be it. It's their decision. They have to live with it.

[yabbadabbadont]

... They have to live with it.

Actually, everyone who uses Ubuntu has to live with it... ;)

[MetalMusicAddict]

Actually, everyone who uses Ubuntu has to live with it... ;)

No. Only people that want to contribute to the team (but anyone joining the team can work to change rules) or use the art they create, have to live with it. Remember, the art team has nothing to do with the official Ubuntu art. So it (the resulting art) is not actually forced on anyone.

So, while I personally feel it's crap to create the look of a free OS with proprietary tools when what we have is plenty capable (people just don't want to learn new things and I can't really care) it's up to the team to go with the proposal or not.

[original_jamingrit]

Something like this feels like it goes against the openness of Open Source and the philosophy behind it.

I agree, forcing it just for the sake of being able to say "FSCK YEAH, FREE SOFTWARE!!!" does seem to be anti-free; discriminating against decent pieces of art made by folks with non-free tools. Software licenses should not matter when it comes to producing images.

But if part of the point is to be representative of what FLOSS tools are capable of, I'd see that as a valid reason.

[smartboyathome]

And BTW, the title here is a bit sensationalist. It should read: "Should the Community Art Team mandate the usage of free tools for submissions?"

Smartboy, you should know better.

Yeah, sorry. I was kind of having a bad day, and in fact later I said "I wish I could retitle this thread, as it is way too drastic." :oops:

[aysiu]

It's probably too late at this point, but I've change the title to MetalMusicAddict's suggestion.

[yabbadabbadont]

No. Only people that want to contribute to the team (but anyone joining the team can work to change rules) or use the art they create, have to live with it. Remember, the art team has nothing to do with the official Ubuntu art. So it (the resulting art) is not actually forced on anyone.

So, while I personally feel it's crap to create the look of a free OS with proprietary tools when what we have is plenty capable (people just don't want to learn new things and I can't really care) it's up to the team to go with the proposal or not.

Ahh. I didn't realize that the art team wasn't an official part of Ubuntu.

Carry on. Nothing to see here.