On 03/04/2010 09:01 PM, Sven Neumann wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:49 +0000, Omari Stephens wrote:
>> Hi, all.  I just finished v1 of the patch to add the sRGB ICCv2 profiles
>> to the GIMP distribution.  They're 3kB each, so size shouldn't be an
>> issue.  The main question is one of licensing.  I believe the license
>> allows us to distribute the profiles, but IANAL.
>> I'd appreciate if someone who either is a lawyer, or acts in that
>> capacity for GIMP, could comment.  If you have other issues with the
>> patch, feel free to voice those as well.
> I appreciate your work on this, but I am afraid that the license is
> compatible with the GPL.
I presume you meant "isn't compatible."  Obviously, IANAL but from 
re-reading the GPL, I believe the case of including a color profile (any 
color profile) falls under its discussion of aggregates:

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent 
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and 
which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or 
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an 
“aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used 
to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond 
what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an 
aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the 

> Aside from that I wonder why GIMP should ship
> with color profiles at all. There is the icc-profiles package that seems
> to be available in most Linx distributions nowadays. We should rather
> continue to depend on that package and make sure that it is included
> with the Windows installer than installing our own duplicates.
My goal in this is only to make sure than an sRGB profile is guaranteed 
to be available.  Depending on the icc-profiles package or any other 
option (such as using Graeme's profiles) would be perfectly fine, as 
long as I could assume that an sRGB profile is available (and there is 
some way to get its pathname).

> The folks from the OpenICC initiative [1] are trying hard to push shared
> color profiles and color management work-flows. We should really try to
> cooperate instead of building our own little world.
 > [1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openicc
I was unaware of this.  Again, the goal is to be able to assume that an 
sRGB profile is available, regardless of how that guarantee is carried out.

Finally, to respond to your question on the bug, we need some way to 
embed an actual sRGB profile into an image.  Simply leaving an image 
untagged or adding some sort of sRGB tick-mark isn't sufficient — there 
are formats where the color-profile is all you have (TIFF and PDF come 
to mind), and where it _isn't_ appropriate to assume that every untagged 
image is sRGB.

As one very specific example, I have a print shop (bayphoto.com) whose 
printers' native color space is AdobeRGB.  If you send them an untagged 
sRGB image, it'll likely end up wrong.  And even beyond that, there's 
the question of whether an sRGB image is sRGBv2 or v4 — the spec openly 
acknowledges that the two will behave differently in many circumstances.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to