From: Monica Kraenzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:51:02 -0300
But now to go to the book page and give a bad rating to say this is
bad quality and the gimp developers say this is not an official
manual is not the finest way. Do you consider this as fair? Not
only to us but also to all the authors who worked on that version?
We had to bad intention at all.
>From my experience (as the project lead for Gutenprint), it *is* a
real problem when well-intentioned distributors use beta (or old)
versions of our software, or make changes without discussing them with
us. We've had a few cases of this happen, and the result is that
users yell at us for something we didn't do. I've fired off a few
angry emails of my own to distributors over things like that.
Yes, the license allows you to do what you want, but that doesn't mean
that it's a good idea to grab a snapshot and publish it as a book, or
to distribute it with changes without clearly pointing out the local
In this particular case, it would have saved a lot of hard feelings
(not to mention a good bit of work on your part) to have asked about
this before publishing it. If nothing else, you would at least have
known what version to publish.
Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project lead for Gutenprint -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net
"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
Gimp-developer mailing list