On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 08:24:36PM +0100, David Marrs wrote:
> Perhaps I'm in danger of starting an argument here but some of your points
> surprise me a little.
> Manish Singh wrote:
> > Maybe the creator of GimpShop should have respected the GIMP community
> > instead of rejecting it. He did not consult anyone on any of the GIMP
> > lists at all as to proper approaches, or even showed any interest in
> > actually making useful contributions.
> Sorry, but surely the whole point of the free software movement is that it
> deliberately empowers users to do all of the things you've just objected to.
> you're uncomfortable with people taking these liberties then maybe you should
> consider releasing your code under a proprietary licence. And who says
> is not a useful contribution? The contribution to the Gimp project may be
> but to the free software community it clearly fills a niche.
Oh, they can totally take the code and do whatever the GPL allows,
that's fine. The GPL allows forks, but doesn't require the organization
that was forked from to provide support to the fork.
Red Hat has no obligation to provide support for CentOS people either.
Consequently, the CentOS people actually maintain their own mailing
lists and bug tracker, etc., so CentOS actually provides their users
> > Since GimpShop rejects the GIMP community, we respect that decision and
> > do not support it here. If you have issues with this, take it up with
> > the people who do GimpShop. They can't reject the community yet expect
> > simultaneously expect it to provide support.
> Well actually, maybe they can because at least one member of this list
> an answer that the OP found helpful. And, to be honest, if it had been left
> that we'd have 3 replies in this thread instead of 30.
Numerous people have complained that GimpShop posts are just clutter
here, and it *does* cause confusion. It also clutters the bug tracker,
since the GimpShop guy doesn't actually upgrade the code in timely
Gimp-user mailing list