On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 14:19, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Because this decision did never happen. At least I don't remember that
> at anytime anyone ever discussed this topic. The filmgimp code slowly
> diverged from the main GIMP source code, mainly because the GIMP
> source code kept improving. Noone ever brought up the question if the
> code should be merged or even outlined a way how this could be done.
> Don't ask me why this didn't happen, but please don't claim that there
> was a decision made to discard that code.

With all due respect Sven (and I do highly respect what you've done
organizing the GIMP project), this wasn't the perception of the people
who paid for the work on FilmGIMP.  It was expected, based on their
discussions with Calvin and Manish (and possibly others) that the code
would be merged into 2.0.  I know this because I interviewed Ray Feeney
and a few others for some articles I did on Linux in Hollywood.  Keep in
mind that they (the FX Industry) were searching for a way to work with
the open source crowd.  But without an absolute authority to determine
the direction GIMP would take (and thus allow the code they paid for to
be merged) they felt snubbed.

While it is possible that there was never an outright decision to
discard the code developed via funding from the FX industry, it's also
true that there was never any outright decision to include it either. 
Lack of a response can be treated as a negative one depending on your
side of the argument.  Ray mentioned that the code that was developed
(primarily the 16 bit code) was rejected in favor of adopting GEGL
because it was felt it would be a better long term solution.  I think
this choice (if not an outright decision) would have gone over better
if, 3 years later, GEGL was now integrated with GIMP.  It's not.  The FX
Industry has reason to feel they are not a target audience of GIMP. 
Having CinePaint, therefore, makes sense since that project can focus
directly on the needs of that target audience.  GIMP, in the meantime,
can focus on more general, long term plans that are aimed at broader

> Similarily there wasn't any discussion about a code merge when the
> code was picked up again by you last year. That would have been a good
> chance to finally merge the filmgimp improvements into GIMP proper.
> But for whatever reason this discussion also never took place.

The problem here is one that other open source projects have had to deal
with as well - how to take a loosely organized group and work with
outside, commercial groups who have more strict rules for interaction. 
XFree86, Apache, and others all formed boards and/or non-profits to help
deal with the situation.  I believe its time the GIMP community
seriously considered this as well.
Michael J. Hammel                               The Graphics Muse 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                      http://www.graphics-muse.com
Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality.
  --  Credited to the Dalai Lama.

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to