>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.)
But this was not what I was talking about. 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? If not even the free software community thinks using free tools for doing our artwork is the right thing to do: Who else should? 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.
