seems to imply that somebody called sopwith has uploaded these two files to the CVS-tree gimp-data-min.

However, sopwith appears all over these directories, both for changes made by and by
.

"sopwith" (Elliot Lee) made the original checkin of the current CVS tree, so a Really Old file checked in by sopwith probably means a file introduced to the GIMP prior to whenever the prior CVS repository went byebye (1998 sometime, I think). I think, but am not entirely sure, that the two patterns being referenced were part of 0.56, which would mean they trace back to S&P. However, I seem also to recall that some of the pattern files in 0.56 were, um, questionably appropriated from other sources (including Adobe). I think the long and the short is that we don't really know where they came from or who (if anyone) holds a copyright interest in them.

Kelly

On 20 Jul 2002, at 15:40, Alexander Maryanovsky wrote:

What license are the pattern images under? Am I allowed to use them royalty free for anything? Do I need to give proper credits to authors of those images?

I am particularly interested in the Granite#1 and Marble#1 images. The reason is this - they are used in a proprietary ICC (Internet Chess Server) client called Blitzin. When I approached the owner of the software about using these images I was given special permission to use them, but only with software that works with their chess server (ICC). This of course gave me the impression that the images belong to them and they are thus able to give me permission to use them. Imagine my surprise when later I found those exact images in GIMP.

So who is the original author of those images? Can I use them freely? Will the blitzin owners need to include notice about the authors? Are they at all allowed to use the images in proprietary software?

seems to imply that somebody called sopwith has uploaded these two files to the CVS-tree gimp-data-min.

However, sopwith appears all over these directories, both for changes made by and by
.

The AUTHORS file in that tree mentions:

"*NOTE: See the AUTHORS.patterns and AUTHORS.brushes text files for a list of who's responsible for individual pattersn and brushes.

This distribution of gimp-data is based on Frederico Mena's gimp-data- 0.99.11, which was based on Matt Hawkins gimp-data-0.99.pre11-3.5, which was based on gimp-data-0.99.9 by Spencer Kimball and Peter Mattis.

Adrian Likins
9/23/97"

Unfortunately, I don't know where to find the AUTHORS.patterns file.

The only specifications of which patterns were contributed by a certain author is in the Win GIMP 1.2.0 distribution, which contains a file called helentr.txt, which lists all patterns included by Helen Triantafillou. The two patterns mentioned by you are not part of her contribution.

Perhaps Adrian can shed some light on this.

On 21 Jul 2002, at 15:07, Kelly Martin wrote:

seems to imply that somebody called sopwith has uploaded these two files to the CVS-tree gimp-data-min.

However, sopwith appears all over these directories, both for changes made by and by
.

"sopwith" (Elliot Lee) made the original checkin of the current CVS tree, so a Really Old file checked in by sopwith probably means a file introduced to the GIMP prior to whenever the prior CVS repository went byebye (1998 sometime, I think). I think, but am not entirely sure, that the two patterns being referenced were part of 0.56, which would mean they trace back to S&P. However, I seem also to recall that some of the pattern files in 0.56 were, um, questionably appropriated from other sources (including Adobe). I think the long and the short is that we don't really know where they came from or who (if anyone) holds a copyright interest in them.

(This is a reply to a message from last year.)

I just downloaded and installed GIMP 1.3.14, and see it still uses those questionable pattern images. Would it be a good idea to make some new patterns and put them in the public domain explicitely? Perhaps the FSF could help with that, by keeping the files.

(I cc'ed to Sopwith, so he may perhaps shed some light on where those images came from.)

Hi,

"Branko Collin" writes:

I just downloaded and installed GIMP 1.3.14, and see it still uses those questionable pattern images. Would it be a good idea to make some new patterns and put them in the public domain explicitely?

Definitely not. It would be nice to give the data shipped with GIMP an overhaul before we ship the next version.

Sven

On 26 Apr 2003, at 13:46, Sven Neumann wrote:

"Branko Collin" writes:

I just downloaded and installed GIMP 1.3.14, and see it still uses those questionable pattern images. Would it be a good idea to make some new patterns and put them in the public domain explicitely?

Definitely not.

With them I meant 'new patterns', not 'new and existing ones'.

It would be nice to give the data shipped with GIMP an overhaul before we ship the next version.

What do you mean by 'overhaul'?

Hi,

"Branko Collin" writes:

It would be nice to give the data shipped with GIMP an overhaul before we ship the next version.

What do you mean by 'overhaul'?

I mean that it would be nice if someone would take the time to go through the data, check if things should be added, removed, reordered, renamed, whatever. Especially the brushes we ship need some maintainance. Lots of them could be converted from pixmap brushes to parametric (generated) brushes. This would allow to edit them (or rather edit a duplicate).

Sven

On 26 Apr 2003, at 14:18, Sven Neumann wrote:

"Branko Collin" writes:

It would be nice to give the data shipped with GIMP an overhaul before we ship the next version.

What do you mean by 'overhaul'?

I mean that it would be nice if someone would take the time to go through the data, check if things should be added, removed, reordered, renamed, whatever.

TML's 1.2.2 Windows build came with a file called helentr.txt that carried the following statement:

"All patterns were made by Helen Triantafillou. http://members.designheaven.com/~helentr/

You may use them in any way you like. Enjoy!"

This file lists 16 patterns.

Of the files I currently see in my local CVS directory of GIMP HEAD (last updated 3 Feb 2003), I see 56 pattern files. Of these, only four have the same name as the Triantafillou files, and none of them the same file size:

bark.pat, brick.pat, paper.pat, wood1.pat.

So unless Elliot Lee can tell us otherwise, I think we should rely on Kelly Martin's memory and assume we do not necessarily have a license to redistribute these image files.

Of course, it is possible we do not need a license; the works may be too small to deserve copyright protection. IANAL, however.

I'll look into this further.

Especially the brushes we ship need some maintainance. Lots of them could be converted from pixmap brushes to parametric (generated) brushes. This would allow to edit them (or rather edit a duplicate).

And this too.

On 2003-04-26 at 1506.31 +0200, Branko Collin typed this:

On 26 Apr 2003, at 14:18, Sven Neumann wrote:

"Branko Collin" writes:

It would be nice to give the data shipped with GIMP an overhaul before we ship the next version.

What do you mean by 'overhaul'?

I mean that it would be nice if someone would take the time to go through the data, check if things should be added, removed, reordered, renamed, whatever.

TML's 1.2.2 Windows build came with a file called helentr.txt that carried the following statement:

"All patterns were made by Helen Triantafillou. http://members.designheaven.com/~helentr/

You may use them in any way you like. Enjoy!"

This file lists 16 patterns.

Of the files I currently see in my local CVS directory of GIMP HEAD (last updated 3 Feb 2003), I see 56 pattern files. Of these, only four have the same name as the Triantafillou files, and none of them the same file size:

bark.pat, brick.pat, paper.pat, wood1.pat.

So unless Elliot Lee can tell us otherwise, I think we should rely on Kelly Martin's memory and assume we do not necessarily have a license to redistribute these image files.

Of course, it is possible we do not need a license; the works may be too small to deserve copyright protection. IANAL, however.

I'll look into this further.

what about stripping all but a few essential and educational patterns from the gimp source; where essential would mean those used by the plug-ins that come with the gimp source and where educational might be a sample tile that has an associated tutorial somewhere accessible.

then, at the same location as the tutorial on how to make the tile included in the source, make available packages of themed patterns and a place to contribute packages. this way, people could personalize gimp for their needs and at the same time, actually help define a good user package.

there are so many patterns in gimp that i don't use. i might actually use them, if i saw them on a web page rather than in the selector window; especially if i got some insight to the history of the pattern and such. for instance, i saw one of my favorite tiles on one of my heros web pages recently: http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~federico/gimp/ i would have been using it more often, if i knew federico had liked it as well. all this information is useless packed into the gimp source, imo, that is what a web site is for. if we use debian as a model, i like the way they make me think i am getting what i want; it would be nice to set up a gimpy way to do that with the resources.

Especially the brushes we ship need some maintainance. Lots of them could be converted from pixmap brushes to parametric (generated) brushes. This would allow to edit them (or rather edit a duplicate).

And this too.

carol