Onsemeliot <onsemeliot@gmail.com> (2016-10-26): > >From a purely practical standpoint it obviously is sufficient to get > final files compliant with open standards. Since then they can be > further edited with free software tools. (I expect this to be common > ground.) Great, that was my point. > But this was not what I was talking about. I was replying to Lucas, not to you. > Politically it makes a big difference if we use artwork created with > non-free tools to represent free software. It would be totally different > if there was no free software available for doing this kind of work. But > we have great tools and plenty of people who are doing amazing stuff > with it. Therefore, what good reason could there be to further accept > submissions done with proprietary tools for such representational > purposes in the future? Conversely, what good reasons are there to discriminate against them? “You suck, you didn't use the right tools!”? That's not what Debian is about. > If not even the free software community thinks using free tools for doing > our artwork is the right thing to do: Who else should? You're missing the point, which I've highlighted already. > I didn't go for free software because it was more convenient but because I > believe we can make our world a better place by doing so. Most of the time > it's easier to stick with the known. But sometimes we have to do a little > extra work to gain freedom. Submitted artwork already adheres to the freedom(s) we defined as a project. See social contract, and free software guidelines. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by putting extra restrictions on the toolchain used to produce these submissions. We already have freedom. You seem to be trying to impose censorship. Bleh. KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature