Re: [Gimp-developer] The issue of JPEG Patents?
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Daniel Rogers wrote: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:47:49 -0700 From: Daniel Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Joao S. O. Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Alan Horkan [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] The issue of JPEG Patents? Joao S. O. Bueno wrote: On Friday 23 April 2004 18:39, Alan Horkan wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/23/forgent_jpeg_suit/ Has the issue of Jpeg Patents been brought up yet? (a quick but not thorough search suggests not) hmmm...What about waiting until october, and THEM start the Gimp Foundation? You can't sue what does not exist Honestly...I got scared for the GIMP when I read about the thou shalt not open scanned-up money images blurbs ... when I read about this JPEG patents, I did not even thought about the GIMP, because it's just too stupid. But..who knows where human greed can take us? Well you could still sue the plugin maintainer. but that is no point. It is greed drivin, thus there is a second, implict rule, thou shall not sue that which has no money. I was thinking that Jpeg support might have to be preemptively removed like Gif support was removed. (Although the Gif patents have expired in America and will expire in Europe in June) On reading more, some comments suggest that this issue might not be specific enough to effect the Gimp but then I always believed Gif could have been included in the Gimp if parts of the Gif compression had been disabled but these issues are always more complicated than they seem. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=105099cid=8948562 - Alan ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] conflict between 2.0 and 2.1
Hi, I'd like to bring up what appears to be a conflict between 2.0 and 2.1 that will become relevant as soon as a tarball of 2.1 is released. Building 2.1 causes the version info in pkgconfig/gimp-2.0.pc to be set to 2.1. This means that any plug-in built thereafter will be installed in 2.1, and there is no way to install new plug-ins for 2.0 without doing something kludgy. Either that, or I'm missing something :-). Best, -- Bill __ __ __ __ Sent via the KillerWebMail system at primate.ucdavis.edu ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The issue of JPEG Patents?
Hi, Alan Horkan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was thinking that Jpeg support might have to be preemptively removed like Gif support was removed. (Although the Gif patents have expired in America and will expire in Europe in June) When was GIF support removed and why didn't I notice? Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] [META] Subject tags / List Moderation
Hi, Pedro Gimeno Fortea [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, perhaps there is consensus on that the lists should be moderated. If so, - How many people don't agree about it being moderated? Me. But I agree that we should try to keep discussions on-topic. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] conflict between 2.0 and 2.1
Hi, William Skaggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd like to bring up what appears to be a conflict between 2.0 and 2.1 that will become relevant as soon as a tarball of 2.1 is released. Building 2.1 causes the version info in pkgconfig/gimp-2.0.pc to be set to 2.1. This means that any plug-in built thereafter will be installed in 2.1, and there is no way to install new plug-ins for 2.0 without doing something kludgy. Either that, or I'm missing something :-). I explained the versioning scheme in a mail to this list. You obviously missed that. Here it is again: The version number has been changed to 2.1.0. We plan to have the gimp-2.2 plug-in API completely backward compatible to gimp-2.0. Nevertheless most versions have been bumped to 2.1 for now. This is to avoid confusion when both the gimp-2.0 and the development branch are installed. It does _not_ mean that you can install gimp-2.0 and gimp-2.1 into the same prefix. The two installations are _not_ disjunct, you need to keep them in separate prefixes! When we approch gimp-2.2, we will probably change most version numbers back to the GIMP API version which is 2.0. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
