Re: [Gimp-developer] Reg:Usuage of the Gimp for my Organization

[C R <cajhne gmail com>]

Licence is not misspelt. If you are outside of the States, that's how you
spell the noun form of "license".
http://grammarist.com/spelling/licence-license/

The revisions suggested does not answer whether the work done in GIMP is
yours, and does not mention that your work in GIMP is not even governed by
the licence, or that you can use it for professional work. I think this is
an important point, because that's what people ask about. The percentage of
people asking about modifying the code is tiny compared to the people who
just want to use the program as-is for creative work. Very few users even
know what it would take to download and modify the code, and I'd rather not
confuse people in what amounts to an introduction to the software. I think
it's good enough to mention it's FOSS, include the link as I've done, and
sure, maybe switch a few words around. Not to mention it's useless for
people to read through the license when it does not pertain to usage of
GIMP as a graphics program for professional work. It's just one more thing
to confuse people, when what they want to know (use case) is not covered by
the license in the first place.

My 2p.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Gez <listas ohweb com ar> wrote:

> El vie, 18-09-2015 a las 16:03 +0100, C R escribió:
> > I have added a hyperlink to "Free and Open Source Software", that
> > links to
> > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> >
> > My thought is the gnu.org page explains the freedoms of all open
> > source
> > software well enough. I've only filled in the direct implications of
> > the
> > four freedoms for GIMP software users in regards to the questions we
> > keep
> > getting regarding licensing, and usage of GIMP for professional
> > purposes/companies.
> >
> > Changes welcome as always.
>
> The license information block has a typo in the title, and GIMP is
> mentioned as "the GIMP" a couple of times.
> Also the GPL link is listed twice, in a couple of paragraphs that are a
> bit redundand and probably can be merged into one.
>
> I wonder if saying that the only license pertains to the source code.
> I'd say that the binaries are also covered by the license, since you
> are obligued to make the source code available when you distribute the
> binaries.
>
> I think the first paragraph is ok (once you remove "the" from GIMP),
> but the second one needs work for more clarity.
> I'm not a native english speaker, so maybe this isn't 100% correct, but
> I'd go for something like this, replacing the second paragraph:
>
> "The program itself is governed by the terms of the GNU General Public
> License (GPL) which ensures that users have freedom to use the program
> with any purpose, study and modify its source code and share
> modifications to the community. You are allowed and encouraged to share
> the program with your friends and colleagues, install it in your school
> or organization and use it for any purpose.
> If you're planning to modify the program and re-distribute it with your
> modifications, make sure that you make the source code available too.
> That's the only obligation required by the license.
> Follow [this link] if you need more information abut the GNU General
> Public License."
>
> Gez.
> _______________________________________________
> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> List address:    gimp-developer-list gnome org
> List membership:
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list