On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Michael Natterer wrote:

Apple sucks and doesn't allow GPL in the App store.

Apple will unofficially allow it but as soon as much as a single contributor toots the GNU horn about distribution restrictions and license conflict they'll immediately pull it from the app store (see VLC app pulled from app store).

GIMP is 90% GUI code and "porting" that would be a complete rewrite.

Isn't the purpose of GEGL integration attempting to pull as much of the graphical functions out of GIMP as possible so that GUI could be switched but the underlying library has the same quality of image manipulation?

If that's not the case what is the point of GEGL?

SAM

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine < alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com> wrote:Oh, I don't know...

32bit per color channel precision? Graph-based non-destructive processing?

:)

Right, it has features. Being that it's a library is it not to provide some abstraction and help simplify the implementation? As it is in a library, writing another GUI on top of it would be possible and considerably easier than previous iterations of GIMP. The user interaction would change but not the features provided.

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine < alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't understand why you are trying to insist on UI change as one of GEGL points.

Yes, one could create an entirely new image editor based on GEGL. In fact, there's at least one such project. But that is simply not the reason we use GEGL in GIMP. I don't know how else to explain that.

I'm not insisting on changing anything in GIMP. Reread what I said. My question was not adequately answered so I continued discussion.

I merely asked if one of the reasons for the creation of GEGL was to abstract graphical manipulation functions out of the GUI into a library. If that was the case would creating a different GUI on top of it feasible for getting similar quality of image manipulation?

Your latest response answers my question.

SAM