> However, I seem also to recall that some of the pattern files >in 0.56 were, um, questionably appropriated from other sources (including >Adobe). I think the long and the short is that we don't really know where >they came from or who (if anyone) holds a copyright interest in them.
Should they really be distributed along with GIMP then? This could be a horrible disservice to someone creating art using GIMP and later finding out that his works contain copyrighted material owned by someone else. Alexander Maryanovsky. At 15:07 7/21/2002 -0500, Kelly Martin wrote: > > <http://cvs.gnome.org> seems to imply that somebody called sopwith > > has uploaded these two files to the CVS-tree gimp-data-min. > > > > However, sopwith appears all over these directories, both for changes > > made by <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and by > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > >"sopwith" (Elliot Lee) made the original checkin of the current CVS tree, so >a Really Old file checked in by sopwith probably means a file introduced to >the GIMP prior to whenever the prior CVS repository went byebye (1998 >sometime, I think). I think, but am not entirely sure, that the two >patterns being referenced were part of 0.56, which would mean they trace >back to S&P. However, I seem also to recall that some of the pattern files >in 0.56 were, um, questionably appropriated from other sources (including >Adobe). I think the long and the short is that we don't really know where >they came from or who (if anyone) holds a copyright interest in them. > >Kelly _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
