On 5/25/06, Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote:

Just missing the deadline for a SoC sponsored plugin for it, microsoft released the specs for their new image file format here:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/wmphoto.mspx

I di dnot download it, bu I read the agreement for ownlaoding it. One keep his soul and his mother in doing so. I mean- there is no nasty NDA, it seems possible to implement a free software as fara s copyright issues stand, for reading and writing the beast - but the nDA says that software patents involving that owned by MS still apply.

They announce a lot of miracles for this format, and it would be nice to be able to read and write to it if half of then hold true.

They lost me with the first sentence of the first clause: You may review these Materials only (a) as a reference to assist You in planning and designing Your product, service or technology ("Product") to interface with a Microsoft product, specification, service or technology ("Microsoft Product") as described in these Materials; and (b) to provide feedback on these Materials to Microsoft.

Talk about a viral license! If you design your own format that uses features similar to this format, you're breaking the agreement. Or if you do a review of it. Etc.

Hypocritically, while Microsoft gives you no patent license, if you make a suggestion to them, they automatically get a patent license from you. Really, the lack of patent licenses is very disturbing, especially given MS's anti-GPL stance.

Oh, and oddly enough, if you read this spec as part of your job and the company you work for gets bought out, you have to agree to destroy all your copies of the specification. That's fun.

All I can say is that it's too bad that the text box that the license shows up in isn't editable. :)

Rockwalrus

On Thu, 25 May 2006, Nathan Summers wrote:

I di dnot download it, bu I read the agreement for ownlaoding it. One keep his soul and his mother in doing so. I mean- there is no nasty

They announce a lot of miracles for this format, and it would be nice to be able to read and write to it if half of then hold true.

They lost me with the first sentence of the first clause:

If you hit the "Do not agree" option it will still let you read the specifications without agreeing. I expect they'll change that soon though.

On 5/26/06, Alan Horkan wrote:

If you hit the "Do not agree" option it will still let you read the specifications without agreeing. I expect they'll change that soon though.

Is there anything interesting in there?

Rockwalrus

On Fri, 26 May 2006, Nathan Summers wrote:

Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 18:52:44 -0400 From: Nathan Summers
To: Alan Horkan
Cc: Not Photoshop
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] New microsoft image format

On 5/26/06, Alan Horkan wrote:

If you hit the "Do not agree" option it will still let you read the specifications without agreeing. I expect they'll change that soon though.

Is there anything interesting in there?

In my opinion no, not really but you might find it more interesting. The ideas all seem to be more or less covered by other existing standards like JPEG 2000 primarily and various others.

(Frankly I'm more interested in XPS/Metro which attempts to replace PDF, and XAML/WVG/Avalon/whatever-they're-calling-it-this-week attempt to replace SVG.)

--
Alan

On Sat, 2006-05-27 at 08:08 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:

On Fri, 26 May 2006, Nathan Summers wrote:

Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 18:52:44 -0400 From: Nathan Summers
To: Alan Horkan
Cc: Not Photoshop
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] New microsoft image format

On 5/26/06, Alan Horkan wrote:

If you hit the "Do not agree" option it will still let you read the specifications without agreeing. I expect they'll change that soon though.

Is there anything interesting in there?

In my opinion no, not really but you might find it more interesting. The ideas all seem to be more or less covered by other existing standards like JPEG 2000 primarily and various others.

(Frankly I'm more interested in XPS/Metro which attempts to replace PDF, and XAML/WVG/Avalon/whatever-they're-calling-it-this-week attempt to replace SVG.)

Really? I'm not interested at all. Zero percent.

To me that looks like the usual M$ attempts to "replace" just about anything that other people have done.

It's already ambivalent to have GIMP running on windows at all, I'm not interested in taking this any further by supporting these formats, and thereby supporting M$. The free software community doesn't get any support from them either.

just my 2 cent,
--mitch

On 5/27/06, Michael Natterer wrote:

On Sat, 2006-05-27 at 08:08 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:

(Frankly I'm more interested in XPS/Metro which attempts to replace PDF, and XAML/WVG/Avalon/whatever-they're-calling-it-this-week attempt to replace SVG.)

Really? I'm not interested at all. Zero percent.

To me that looks like the usual M$ attempts to "replace" just about anything that other people have done.

It's already ambivalent to have GIMP running on windows at all, I'm not interested in taking this any further by supporting these formats, and thereby supporting M$. The free software community doesn't get any support from them either.

Plus the fact that M$ submarine patents are no idle threat. I'm very wary of M$ geeks baring gifts, especially when they explicitly don't grant patent licenses in the legalease.

Anyway, all this reminds me that I started writing a pdf output plugin a while ago. Maybe I should dust it off this three-day weekend.

Rockwalrus

On Sat, 27 May 2006, Michael Natterer wrote:

Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 10:51:22 +0200 From: Michael Natterer
To: Alan Horkan
Cc: gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] New microsoft image format

On Sat, 2006-05-27 at 08:08 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:

On Fri, 26 May 2006, Nathan Summers wrote:

Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 18:52:44 -0400 From: Nathan Summers
To: Alan Horkan
Cc: Not Photoshop
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] New microsoft image format

On 5/26/06, Alan Horkan wrote:

If you hit the "Do not agree" option it will still let you read the specifications without agreeing. I expect they'll change that soon though.

Is there anything interesting in there?

In my opinion no, not really but you might find it more interesting. The ideas all seem to be more or less covered by other existing standards like JPEG 2000 primarily and various others.

The summer of code work on Jpeg 2000 support should provide a good counter point and give one less reason for the new Microsoft image format to gain an audience.

More contributors are preferable to non contributing users but if it keeps them away from proprietary formats which hurt us in the long run the network effect of many users turn a small difference into a big defense.

(Frankly I'm more interested in XPS/Metro which attempts to replace PDF, and XAML/WVG/Avalon/whatever-they're-calling-it-this-week attempt to replace SVG.)

Really? I'm not interested at all. Zero percent.

To me that looks like the usual M$ attempts to "replace" just about anything that other people have done.

That is the part that interested me, I'll be interested to see it fail hopefully. I'm not saying the format is necessarily any good but it is interesting to see Microsoft try to reinvent the wheel. I hope the drawing part of XAML to end up deader than VML. Since acrobat reader is so horribly slow by default I think XPS might stand a decent chance of carving out at least a small niche but perhaps a windows port of Evince (or KPDF or or ...) would give diserning users a faster alternative to Adobe and reduce there interest in what Microsoft might offer.

It's already ambivalent to have GIMP running on windows at all,

I wholeheartedly support more Free Software for those still stuck on a proprietary Operating System. It is what put me on the path to using more Free Software and a free operating system. There are times when I dont have the choice of operating system but I do still have the option of installing additional software.

I'm not interested in taking this any further by supporting these formats, and thereby supporting M$.

I wonder if creating importers for these formats would reinforce them or help get users away from them? Of course it all depends on if a developer decides it is interesting enough to implement.

Free and open standards are very important. It is shame we dont yet have a suitable standard for sharing layered raster images.

-- Alan

From: Michael Natterer

It's already ambivalent to have GIMP running on windows at all, I'm not interested in taking this any further by supporting these formats, and thereby supporting M$. The free software community doesn't get any support from them either.

I have designed speed-up improvements for PDF. There is place for an improved format. But I hope the MS's preference is not in copy control, i.e., that their format would be tied to DRM.

Now to the quoted text. In my software, I have already thought of using a license which forbids their use in Windows. I don't know the license details yet; perhaps GPL + restriction.

The major point is that domestic computers are sold with Windows preinstalled. I have not seen a domestic computer sold both with Windows and Linux, or with Linux only. This is not entirely about what people want: the Windows typically is ripped-down version which comes with ripped-down, bannered versions of software. The system is barely usable as standalone (not usable if you ask my opinion).

If GIMP and other major free software could not be used in Windows, domestic users would perhaps ask for other OS. Having piracy laws and copy control improving, would leave people no option than purchase the products for Windows. Then the free software could be a winner. Then the consept that major free software cannot be used in Windows will work.

I have played recently with the idea that what if only preinstalled OS is Linux. How many would buy Windows anymore? How many software companies would develop for Linux because everyone would have Linux? Suse Linux costs $70 and Windows $270 -- people would save money too. I have got replies to above that OEM version of Windows costs less, but I call it price dumping, bribing, breaking trade-laws to sell products cheaper in preinstallation context. The computer manufacturers may not get the "discount" if they dual preinstall both Windows and Linux.

How many GIMP users the world has? How many copies are downloaded yearly? What about Photoshop? OEM/bundled versions excluded? Included?

Juhana

Juhana Sadeharju wrote:

Now to the quoted text.
In my software, I have already thought of using a license which forbids their use in Windows. I don't know the license details yet; perhaps GPL + restriction.

Then please refrain from using the GPL at all.

Thanks, Michael

On Saturday 03 June 2006 08:08, Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote:

On Saturday 03 June 2006 05:49 am, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:

Now to the quoted text.
In my software, I have already thought of using a license which forbids their use in Windows. I don't know the license details yet; perhaps GPL + restriction.

The major point is that domestic computers are sold with Windows preinstalled. I have not seen a domestic computer sold both with Windows and Linux, or with Linux only. This is not entirely about what people want: the Windows typically is ripped-down version which comes with ripped-down, bannered versions of software. The system is barely usable as standalone (not usable if you ask my opinion).

Just to stand the point: here they are starting to sell computers with linux only on the low end market. It is a step forward, but smaller than it looks like. Salesperson thenselves offer to install pirated windows versions on these computers for a small fee, for example.

On the other hand some of the vendors thenselves make such a crappy install of Linux that no one can handle using it. Linux Magazine Brasil tested a low end machine by HP that came with 128MB RAM and 1GB Swap space. The result: OpenOffice would take full 3 min. to start!

Here in the US Wallmart was selling PC's with Linux (Lindows) pre-installed. These were basic entry level machines being sold at very reasonable prices (US $200 2 years ago). I don't know if they are still selling these. In addition HP and Sun has been offering PCs with Linux pre-installed for several years now.

In 2000 Linux was installed on about 1.5% of all desktop machines world wide. By 2003 this had grown to 2.8% and some are projecting that it will reach 6% this year and 12% by 2010. Currently the Mac is at about 2.9%. Clearly the use of OSS systems on the desktop is growing at a very rapid pace with desktop market share doubling every 3 to 5 years.

If OSS systems like Linux are going to become dominant on the desktop then this will happen because they are over all superior to proprietary systems not because of restrictive licensing. In fact one of the advantages of using OSS systems and software is the fact that restrictive licenses are not the norm.

And now, leaving this subject and back on what the main thread become: I am just finishing a 4 month course on the GIMP for people wiht little knowledge on computers and little wealth. All of then run Windows , if they have PC's - and if the GIMP did not run on windows, they'd have to be using some other software athome instead of the gimp.

But, step by step we are getting there.

Regards,

JS ->

On Saturday 03 June 2006 11:49, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:

Now to the quoted text.
In my software, I have already thought of using a license which forbids their use in Windows. I don't know the license details yet; perhaps GPL + restriction.

That would make this software non-free (and non-open-source). Reading from the "Free Software Definition" ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ):

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

That put aside, you are not obliged to take an extra effort to make your software portable to Windows. But if you want it to be free, you need to allow other people to port it there if they desire to.

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish shlomif@iglu.org.il Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

95% of the programmers consider 95% of the code they did not write, in the bottom 5%.

On Saturday 03 June 2006 11:49, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:

In my software, I have already thought of using a license which forbids their use in Windows. I don't know the license details yet; perhaps GPL + restriction.

You might wish to look at the licensing of the Xara Xtreme software. They have recently Open-Sourced (and GPLed) Linux and Mac versions of their drawing program while maintaining a commercial license on the Windows platform. They were able to do this because they wrote the software and obtain agreements from other contributors before incorporating their contributions into the commercially licensed versions.

This hybrid licensing seems to be a reaction to Microsoft's intent to enter the vector graphics drawing program arena and not really "anti-Windows" motivated.

The contributor's agreement can be examined at http://www.xaraxtreme.org/contributor_agreement.html