Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> (2016-10-27): > I think that Onsemeliot's point is that it's a missed opportunity. You > mentioned the Social Contract in an earlier message. What it also says > is: > > 2. We will give back to the free software community > > [...] We will communicate things such as bug fixes, improvements and user > requests to the upstream authors of works included in our system. > > What we are essentially doing here is communicating that using > proprietary software provided a better result, and that the free > alternatives appear buggy or counter-intuitive (quoting what you wrote), > without communicating precise details about what's wrong and could be > improved to upstream authors of the free alternatives. No, you're making that up. Juliette's skills (technical and/or artistic) made the difference. What she used, and why, is entirely her business. You don't get to arbitrarily choose what people use to contribute free artwork, period. The story behind her choices has already been told *and more importantly* is entirely irrelevant to her theme's being chosen, once again. > So we are clearly missing an opportunity to advertise the free > alternatives, and to provide feedback and contribute to improving them. Forbidding free contributions made from non-free tools doesn't solve your “missing opportunity” thing. Either it puts extra work on contributors (hint: that's entirely unacceptable), or it means we get fewer free contributions (great work!). So much about missed opportunities… > You might not value that goal very highly and prefer to remain pragmatic. > But you can probably agree that it's a valid point. I have nothing against that goal. But that's not what artwork is about; so no, that's irrelevant, thus: not a valid point at all. > A similar situation would arise if the DPL was using proprietary tools, > e.g. to prepare and give presentations about Debian. Argumentation through comparisons, really? No, thanks. KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature