Re: Policy on software used to create desktop theme?
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 18:36 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Juliette's skills (technical and/or artistic) made the difference. What
> she used, and why, is entirely her business.
Only if we don't mind.
You can use this reasoning to throw out ethical arguments in principle.
For example: As long as the food tastes good, it doesn't matter how
people, nature and animals where treated in production?
> You don't get to arbitrarily choose what people use to contribute free
> artwork, period.
Well, if you say so ... then it must be the case?
As far as I know who is issuing the tender decides on what submissions
will be accepted. There is no law of nature.
> Forbidding free contributions made from non-free tools doesn't solve your
> “missing opportunity” thing.
How is that?
> it means we get fewer free contributions (great work!).
Oh well, there it is: You think without accepting works done with
proprietary tools there couldn't be enough good submissions to choose
from.
> But that's not what artwork is about; so no, that's irrelevant, thus:
> not a valid point at all.
You seem to misunderstand your own beliefs as facts. Artwork can
represent a lot. Most of the time people interpret it in ways you never
thought about. So you can't just define that using designs created with
proprietary tools does not put free tools in a bad light. It does in
many eyes. Even if you don't want it to. (And as seen in your quote
before: You yourself believe not much good comes from free designing
programs - at least yet.)
> > 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.
It is impossible to make an argument without making references. And this
is totally logical since the whole point of arguments is the intention
to enable other people to recognize new aspects by explaining
similarities with things they know already. If this wasn't the case
arguments would be pointless. They would lack any meaning without
comparisons.
In my opinion Lucas has given an excellent example. Maybe you could find
a sensible argument against it if you actually would consider it instead
of disregarding it for bogus formal reasons.
Reply to: