Re: [Gimp-user] The Gimp Foundation
Hi, Daniel Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As was discussed at Gimp Con 2003 (and before, frankly) I am in the process of incorporating The GIMP Foundation as a non-profit organization devoted to supporting the gimp. Thanks a lot for organizing this. Here are some of the ideas I am currently mulling over regarding TGF: Selling t-shirts, coffee cups, lapel pins, posters, etc. Selling printed manuals. Selling GPL complient binary and source disributions on cd. Selling and paying people to go train and give presentations on the GIMP. Public and private grants. (someone (like me) will need to apply for these) Tax deductable donations. buying hardware (computers, tablets, scanners, colorimeters). full color magazine ads free training sessions office space accounting legal expenses staff paying programmers, web designers, tech writers constructing a build farm (this would help both developers and in making a cd distribution). This sounds a lot more like an attempt to bring WilberWorks back to life than what I was imaging from such a foundation. IMO it should be a lot less commercially oriented but maybe I am only getting a wrong impression from looking at this list. I don't think a GIMP foundation should share any interests with companies like for example MacGIMP. IMO a foundation should not sell anything. It should serve as a representant of the GIMP developers and it may accept donations (actually that's one of the major points). It should also help to create contacts between the GIMP community and people that seek for advice or need speakers. But IMHO there should be no t-shirts, no printed manuals, no CDs and most importanyly no ads. If someone wants to do this kind of stuff, feel free to found a company and try your luck. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: [Gimp-user] The Gimp Foundation
* Raphaël Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-13-03 07:41]: On 13 Oct 2003 11:55:27 +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Selling GIMP tee-shirts, manuals, CDs and other stuff may be interesting, but I would prefer to have this done by a company that would be a separate legal entity. Otherwise, there could be some conflicts between a commercial GIMP Foundation and the companies that are already selling GIMP stuff (ftgimp, macgimp/wingimp, xdarwin and probably several others). I would like the GIMP Foundation to be seen as neutral and clearly non-commercial, so that the companies who are selling GIMP CDs could make a donation to the foundation without feeling that they are giving money to a potential competitor. Perhaps the selling of a license (rights) to produce and/or sell items would be an acceptable alternative. -- Patrick ShanahanRegistered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org@ http://counter.li.org ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] What happened to transparency after flatten?
I have several layered images developed for an animation. I built them using a white background for ease in drawing. All other layers were transparent. For each I then deleted the background layer, flattened the image, and saved as *.png. However, the flattened image still had a white background, when I intended that it be transparent. What did I do wrong? -- Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the Universe. --Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] What happened to transparency after flatten?
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:49:02 +0200 Marco Wessel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Ah! That does it. Thank you, Marco. -- Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the Universe. --Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] What happened to transparency after flatten?
Hi Marco - I've been working with some facets of digital images for a long time, but I still don't completely understand everything about transparency. In particular, you mention one of the things here that I am confused about. Could you please explain further exactly what transparency and alpha channels have to do with each other? Does the value of the alpha channel provide the transparency level for each pixel, and if so, then what does that have to do with alpha? Also, how is level of transparency actually applied in order compute the final display values for a pixel when a semi-transparent pixel is overlaid onto an underlying non-transparent pixel? Although the original question in this thread involved png files, I am more interested in tiff files, but I suspect that essentially the same answer applies to both. Thanks! s/KAM - Original Message - From: Marco Wessel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] What happened to transparency after flatten? On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:32:13AM -0500, Albert Wagner wrote: I have several layered images developed for an animation. I built them using a white background for ease in drawing. All other layers were transparent. For each I then deleted the background layer, flattened the image, and saved as *.png. However, the flattened image still had a white background, when I intended that it be transparent. What did I do wrong? That's exactly what flatten is intended to do. If you want an alpha channel in your png, just use save as a png without flattening. It'll ask you to merge the visible layers for the export because png can't handle them, and save a png just like you want it to: with alpha channel. Marco Wessel ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] What happened to transparency after flatten?
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:06:09AM -0500, Kevin Myers wrote: Hi Marco - I've been working with some facets of digital images for a long time, but I still don't completely understand everything about transparency. In particular, you mention one of the things here that I am confused about. Could you please explain further exactly what transparency and alpha channels have to do with each other? First off -- unless you mean you want to see through parts of an image entirely, you mean translucency. Transparent - invisible; translucent - see-through. The alpha channel is basically a channel just like red, green, and blue, except that it determines the translucency of the pixel, instead of the colour. what does that have to do with alpha? I have no clue why they called it an alpha channel, if that's what you mean. Also, how is level of transparency actually applied in order compute the final display values for a pixel when a semi-transparent pixel is overlaid onto an underlying non-transparent pixel? While typing this email, I see sven has answered this. Although the original question in this thread involved png files, I am more interested in tiff files, but I suspect that essentially the same answer applies to both. Thanks! Both support alpha channels, yes. Marco ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] The Gimp Foundation
Sven Neumann wrote: This sounds a lot more like an attempt to bring WilberWorks Wilber what? I plead ignorant. back to life than what I was imaging from such a foundation. IMO it should be a lot less commercially oriented but maybe I am only getting a wrong impression from looking at this list. I don't think a GIMP foundation should share any interests with companies like for example MacGIMP. IMO a foundation should not sell anything. It should serve as a representant of the GIMP developers and it may accept donations (actually that's one of the major points). And donations would be one of its major points. However having a reliable source of money, like manual and chachka sales can only help TGF be more helpful. Basically, _anything_ TGF does will cost money. The more money it has, the more helpful things it can do. The FSF foundation, for example, collects membership dues (which are tax deductable donations) and sells tshirts, pins, stickers, posters, manuals, cds, has a corporate patronage program, in addition to seeking out private donations. The gnome foundation at least has tshirts, coffee mugs and the like that it gives to big donators, and is making some kind of noise about setting up a store. The mozilla foundation doesn't have these things, but I am willing to bet that they will in the future. Essentially, I can't run this thing forever, for free. There needs to be some way of making enough money to reliably pay for things like filing fees. Besides, people are more willing to donate money if we can give them something for the donation. As for being a representative of the GIMP developers, I think this should be TGF's primary responsibility. However, doing that also costs money. There are phone bills, mailing costs, travel costs, gas costs, my accounting is _almost_ free but will still cost something (and accounting is important to keep our tax-exempt status). It should also help to create contacts between the GIMP community and people that seek for advice or need speakers. But IMHO there should be no t-shirts, no printed manuals, no CDs and most importanyly no ads. If someone wants to do this kind of stuff, feel free to found a company and try your luck. Yes. I hope I haven't mislead people into thinking I am trying to start some kind of commerical venture. Believe me, I am not. However, I am trying to think of as many ways as possible to be as helpful as possible to the gimp community. All of these things require money. Paying for things like the next GimpCon, and making presentations happen are some of the best ways I can come up with to help the Gimp Community. I want to do these things. If I am doing these things, then I feel TGF is being successful. However to be able to do these things we need money. The more money we have, the more successful I feel running TGF. As far as printed manuals go, I think they are important. I really like printed documentation (it is waay better than online documentation) and I think printed manuals go a long ways toward encouraging people to use (and thus donate to!) the gimp. Binary packages are in this same vein, but, I think, less important, since distros (and Tor) will prepare packages for us. -- Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Re: [Gimp-developer] The Gimp Foundation
Also, I fear my first email may have been a bit to rambling to be able to actually get my point across. What I am hoping to discover by encourging this conversation is what ways people would like to help with TGF and in what ways people would like to see TGF help them. I would also like to get any questions about TGF role, my role, and anyone elses potential role answered as completely as possible. Sticky legal questions, if posed soon enough will be something I can pass onto my lawyer. I want to get people as excited as I am about the potential that TGF has to help the GIMP. -- Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: [Gimp-user] The Gimp Foundation
On 13 Oct 2003 11:55:27 +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As was discussed at Gimp Con 2003 (and before, frankly) I am in the process of incorporating The GIMP Foundation as a non-profit organization devoted to supporting the gimp. Thanks a lot for organizing this. Here are some of the ideas I am currently mulling over regarding TGF: [...] This sounds a lot more like an attempt to bring WilberWorks back to life than what I was imaging from such a foundation. IMO it should be a lot less commercially oriented but maybe I am only getting a wrong impression from looking at this list. [...] Sorry if this sounds like a me too but I would like to second this. After watching your (Daniel) presentation at GimpCon2003 and the discussion that followed, I thought that the main roles of the GIMP Foundation would be: - to be a non-profit organization that can collect donations without trying to sell anything by itself; - to serve as a contact point for conferences and events interested in GIMP presentations. Selling GIMP tee-shirts, manuals, CDs and other stuff may be interesting, but I would prefer to have this done by a company that would be a separate legal entity. Otherwise, there could be some conflicts between a commercial GIMP Foundation and the companies that are already selling GIMP stuff (ftgimp, macgimp/wingimp, xdarwin and probably several others). I would like the GIMP Foundation to be seen as neutral and clearly non-commercial, so that the companies who are selling GIMP CDs could make a donation to the foundation without feeling that they are giving money to a potential competitor. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] GIMP 1.3 Reference Manuals
Hi, I sent a similar mail to the gimp-developer list last week but since there was no feedback I assume that our developers are all too busy to help with the documentation. So I am trying again here... One of the goals of current GIMP development is to make the code easier to read and understand. One way to achieve this goal is to improve the source code structure, the other is documentation. Of course the two should go hand in hand and that's what is happening. The current state of documentation is online at http://developer.gimp.org/api/1.3/ As you can see there's still a lot to do here (see below for some numbers). We'd like to concentrate on documentation of the libraries for now since the core API (app) hasn't settled enough yet. If someone wants to contribute, there are several things you could work on: - Completion of the libgimp* API references This basically means adding gtk-doc style comments to undocumented functions as well as improving the introductory parts that are found in the tmpl directories. - Proof-reading the existing docs More or less the same workflow as above. Please note that the comments for the libgimp PDB wrappers are generated from the PDB documentation that is found in tools/pdbgen/pdb. - Addition of some introductory chapters This could be for example Compiling a GIMP Plug-In or Porting a GIMP Plug-In to the 2.0 API (Jeff Trefftzs expressed interest to do the latter). There is a README in the devel-docs directory that should get you started with gtk-doc and the tiny bits of DocBook XML you might need to know. If you would like to help or if you have any questions please let me and the list know about it. Sven PS: Below are some numbers on the current state of the documentation of our libraries: libgimp 77% symbol docs coverage. 365 symbols documented. 110 not documented. libgimpbase 21% symbol docs coverage. 27 symbols documented. 104 not documented. libgimpcolor 3% symbol docs coverage. 2 symbols documented. 66 not documented. libgimpmath 81% symbol docs coverage. 60 symbols documented. 14 not documented. libgimpmodule 100% symbol docs coverage. 20 symbols documented. 0 not documented. libgimpwidgets 84% symbol docs coverage. 261 symbols documented. 49 not documented. ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] The Gimp Foundation
Hi, Daniel Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sven Neumann wrote: This sounds a lot more like an attempt to bring WilberWorks Wilber what? I plead ignorant. Oh well, one should really run one's own internet archive. The website seems bought off and of course not much is left to be found on google and friends. This is the best link I could find: http://linux.rice.edu/webmap/appdescriptions/WilberWorks.html Let's hope one of the folks involved into this can tell us more about the goals of WilberWorks and why it didn't work (that well). Perhaps there are things we can learn from it... And donations would be one of its major points. However having a reliable source of money, like manual and chachka sales can only help TGF be more helpful. Basically, _anything_ TGF does will cost money. The more money it has, the more helpful things it can do. If you put it that way (with all the other things you said in your reply) it feels a lot better already. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] The Gimp Foundation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sven Neumann wrote: | Thanks a lot for organizing this. you're welcome. - -- Dan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/i3VQad4P1+ZAZk0RAoP7AJ9DMaylrJB3h6Snuw3O6SFEM32P0gCfYpMx A8vbP5we4CIVmcEo4YjiRUc= =D2ll -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
