[CREATE] open your eyes (your source is already open)
create07 at sfina.com
Mon Aug 30 20:05:17 PDT 2010
In a software directory there is no need to mention that "Inkscape is an Open
Source vector graphics editor". Inkscape is a vector graphics editor. Full
There is also no need to mention that Inkscape is like Illustrator. Nor the
other way around. What I meant with mentioning non-Free software are things
like: "Inkscape can import and export Illustrator files, guaranteeing that
your files will be accessible for as long as you need them". But then you
need to list Illustrator in the vector graphics editors category next to
Inkscape, sK1, Corel Draw, and the rest.
The difference is that Inkscape would have the LG logo next to it.
Illustrator not. The LG logo stands for a series of criteria, like:
* adheres to open standards and file formats as set by the W3C or whatever
other body of consensus
* is protected against corporate interests pulling the plug (i.e. the FreeHand
* you can modify it to suit your need (or pay an expert to do so)
you will excuse me if I do not refine the list of FLOSS advantages which are
obvious to us, but not to the general public. This is the level where the
comparison can and should be made. Not tool against tool, feature against
feature, but LG against PG. Each one of the above bullets can lead to a page
with more detail, explaining the ramification and consequences.
For example the re-training costs and other losses that are associated with
the inevitable upgrades in PG, that eclipse the licensing cost.
The logical, rational conclusion to which it leads is to *prefer* LG over PG
Indeed there is complexity and we should not shy away from making it available
and accessible - just make it palatable level by level. The deeper the viewer
digs, the more they will ask and the more they will get. It does not have to
be *all now* - give the framework space and time to grow. Stories like the
FreeHand story will surface and go into the collection. Or the QuickTimeVR
story, affecting panorama makers like myself.
At the top level there is a software directory. The viewer only wants to know
what vector graphics editors there are. List them all. The more complete the
list, the more reputable your site will be. Don't compare. Don't rank. Just
list. Some will have a badge, some not. The curious user will click on the
badge to get to the next level. Those same "badged" software will also have a
link to an explanation with details such as how Inkscape interoperates with
the files from other vector graphic tools - Free and not, and what it can do
The badge I suggested would be for software only, kind of a "verification
process" that says the software complies with certain users rights such as: we
will never (be able to) intentionally lock you out of your files or force you
to pay for an upgrade. I agree with a.l.e. that pointing it to a work-in-
progress wiki page is less than ideal, but it's a start until a kind of "LG
software charter" is finalized. The "LG software charter" should be user
centric (i.e. what does it mean to me) not software centric (as the GPL and
other FLOSS licenses are because of their intrinsic nature).
An LG badge would be watered down if it was used to mark other things than
software. But it is a good idea to have an LG-user badge next to an LG-
software badge. Actually it could be a family of badges:
- LG-software: distinguish software that give users more rights
- LG-contributor: distinguish people and companies that contribute to LG-
software (maybe a different badge for people than for corporations)
- LG-user: distinguish people and companies that use LG-software
I can speak in confidence that the Hugin and Enblend teams will be happy to
show the LG-software badge on their respective sites; and I would put an LG-
contributor/user badge on my blog.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the CREATE