Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> (2016-10-26): > Your tone seem to imply that you think that such recommandations are > wrong. I must admit that I'm more of the opinion that everybody should be > free to use whatever software they want when it doesn't have an impact on > others, but that in the context of Debian, "Free Software Needs Free > Tools" (https://mako.cc/writing/hill-free_tools.html). I've witnessed mansplaining and “just do that extra work instead of using the tool of your choice” replies. I'm pretty sure both are utterly wrong and unacceptable. I'm not sure what needing free tools has to do with telling people they're not free to use whatever they're accustomed to, and efficient with. > > And how she should be taking the time to describe everything suboptimal > > to the relevant developers, instead of just doing well what she wants > > to. > > That sounds like a good idea, and back then I think that we even discussed > using Debian money to send Juliette to Libre Graphics Meeting or another > such event. If that did not happen, I still think that it's worth > exploring, if she is interested. And that's entirely orthogonal to submitting proposals with the tool(s) of her choice. And that shouldn't be any requirement for another round of proposals, or extra work that should be forced upon her. > On 26/10/16 at 16:14 +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > > We don't ban software that hasn't been done with free software entirely, > > and I don't think it'd be wise, or even tractable, to impose such a > > rule. Yay for mixing up replies. > I think that the root question is not whether proprietary software was > used to create that work (some DDs probably use proprietary text editors > to edit files in debian/), but whether we are bound to proprietary > software to modify the (free) software we produce. > > I see that some of those contributions are only provided in > Illustrator's format[0]. can they be edited (and exported) using > Inkscape? (I tried to open them, and the 'debian' text didn't look right > -- but maybe I'm missing (free?) fonts?) > > So, to put it differently, I'm curious if SVG is a suitable format for > modification of that artwork, and what are its "build-dependencies". Heh? You're aware we already did that kind of integration for the last release? I don't recall Didier's having had any issues with it. Aurélien already confirmed in another reply that things are going smoothly for Stretch as well. Also, speaking as someone who actually made modifications instead of only rumbling on this mailing list, I'm pretty sure that SVG is a suitable format for later modifications. > Having a requirement that submitted artworks must be in a source format > that is suitable for modification, under a free license, and with > available software in Debian to serve as build-dependencies to convert it > to the "final" format, would sound like a reasonable requirement for > Buster, and in line with what we do for other kinds of software. As incredible as it sounds, that's exactly what's happening in the relevant source packages in the end. Why should these files be any different? That being said, I'm not opposed to suggesting submitters to submit stuff in a more suitable format than .ai files. But as far as I understand how the wiki submission worked, submitters were free to update their proposals on a regular fashion. I don't think dumping the current state of their proposal in their favorite format should be forbidden. A final export (e.g. to SVG) before the call for votes might be a good idea. But, oh, look, we actually have requirements already! https://wiki.debian.org/DebianDesktop/Artwork/Requirements KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature