Hi,
Austin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable
> > interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF
> > which isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support
> > into various other apps will m
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 02:58:20PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable
> interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF
> which isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support
> into various other apps wi
On 16 Dec 2001, at 14:58, Sven Neumann wrote:
> "Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I am not trying to advocate XCF as a format for the exchange of
> > images, but I do think that if for instance the authors of
> > ImageMagick want to support it, they may have a good reason for
> >
On , 16 Dec 2001, Sven Neumann wrote:
> my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable
> interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF
> which isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support
> into various other apps will make that even more
Hi,
"Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Today I saw another reason for XCF to be taken more seriously as an
> interchange format by the GIMP developers (or at least to document
> the format and its effects better).
>
> In rec.photo.digital somebody wrote in the thread 'IMatch catalo
On 4 Dec 2001, at 13:09, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > >Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just
> > > > checked support for reading
On 4 Dec 2001, at 8:00, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> At 02:22 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Raphael Quinet wrote:
> >- This may be controversial, but ImageMagick has a BSD-style license
> > that includes the "advertising clause".
>
> ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
> ImageMagick is
On 4 Dec 2001, at 13:09, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > >Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked
> > > > support for reading (
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:35:55AM -0500, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> Don't you have to maintain backwards compatibility with your own
> user base? I certainly expect that you will change things to support new
> features (CMYK, etc.), but since old GIMP users have to be able to read
>
At 12:16 PM 12/4/2001 -0600, Stephen J Baker wrote:
>(Although it *does* mean that ImageMagick had better not be using
>any GIMP code to help out it's decode/display of XCF's or it'll be
>in breach of GPL)
No GIMP code - at least not verbatim.
We don't use glib and we have our
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Raphael Quinet wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Marc wrote:
> > > ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
> [...]
> > In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license
> > (in Copyright.txt).
> >
> > (and I think it is very much BSD-lik
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Marc wrote:
> > ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
[...]
> In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license
> (in Copyright.txt).
>
> (and I think it is very much BSD-like).
Right. And I was wrong in my previous comment: the
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:28:07AM -0500, Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >ImageMagick can read xcf files using delegates for quite some time,
> >btw. Of course, gimp must be installed for this to work.
>
> Right, you could have always done this - but it would have meant
At 05:07 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:
>ImageMagick can read xcf files using delegates for quite some time,
>btw. Of course, gimp must be installed for this to work.
Right, you could have always done this - but it would have meant
having GIMP and t
>ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
If ImageMagick does not have a license, it's not legal to use it in a lot
of countries.
In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license
(in Copyright.txt).
(and I think it is very much BSD-like).
--
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:06:56PM +0100, René <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There will be a new version of xcf eventually - so what? I'll use
> imagemagick today, and if no-one finds it worth the time implementing
> support for the new(er) version(s) I'm no worse off than if it hadn't been
Imag
Hi,
Jon Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, this is bothersome. I expect XCF to grow and change and improve but I
> also expect a certain amount of backwards compatability.
>
> I'm using Gimp in a production environment and I'm storing all of my
> "original artwork" images (anything with
> Appreciated. But it does sound like you'd also not be interested
> in my adding XCF writing support to ImageMagick then either??! (which is
> fine, I have other things to work on ;).
My two cents ... Personally, I am in favor of XCF support in ImageMagick.
Bill Sebok Compute
At 06:06 AM 12/4/2001 -0800, Seth Burgess wrote:
>I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF,
I am pretty sure that I do, but I'll hack up some files and try it
out. It already deal with the differences between the old and new headers.
>Now, I don't expect it to be easy
On Tuesday, 4 Dec 2001, Seth Burgess wrote:
> I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF, this will be
> exceptionally useful to users of ImageMagick. Its not at all an uncommon
> request on gimp-user or the gimp newsgroup. Batch conversion is still best
> handled via the commandl
Hi Leonard,
I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF, this will be
exceptionally useful to users of ImageMagick. Its not at all an uncommon
request on gimp-user or the gimp newsgroup. Batch conversion is still best
handled via the commandline, and having the ability to use gimp'
Hi,
Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >For image web galleries, I'd suggest they use GIMP in batch mode
> >to convert to another format or to create the thumbnails directly.
> >That would probably have been a way to go for ImageMagick too.
>
> For whatever reason, most (a
At 02:04 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
>The idea to use XCF in an AbiWord document makes me shudder.
The AbiWord folks actually liked the idea! I don't know how many
people will actually use it - but it's nice to have and it continues to
improve the integration of "GNOME Off
At 02:22 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Raphael Quinet wrote:
- XCF is designed for internal use
by the Gimp while one is editing an
image but it is not supposed to be used for the "final"
images to be
distributed to other people. Other (standard) formats such
as PNG or
JPEG should be used if one want
Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
> > reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library
> > (http://www.imagemagick.org).
> >
> > Right now you'
Hi,
Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't you have to maintain backwards compatibility with your
> own user base? I certainly expect that you will change things to
> support new features (CMYK, etc.), but since old GIMP users have to be
> able to read those files, your
At 01:09 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
>Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why would adding support for XCF to ImageMagick be "a bad
> > idea and wasted time and effort"? Because XCF is changing? Because
> > GIMP users would use GIMP to convert image formats? Be
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
>> if you ask me, this is a bad idea and wasted time and effort, but I
>> guess it's too late now to discourage you from trying to read XCF.
>
> Why would adding support for XCF to ImageMagick be
Hi,
Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> >Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
> > > reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagi
At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
>Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
> > reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library
> > (http://www.imagemagick.org).
> >
>if you ask m
Hi,
Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
> reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library
> (http://www.imagemagick.org).
>
> Right now you'd need to get it via CVS, BUT it will be part of t
I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library
(http://www.imagemagick.org).
Right now you'd need to get it via CVS, BUT it will be part of the standard
5.4.1 distribution due on Friday.
Leonard
Mem
32 matches
Mail list logo