191–200 of 205 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re using the applications on Linux you can use HUDs like https://github.com/hardpixel/gnome-hud
Does Gimp use the correct api calls for that? I use it, but 90% of GTK apps do not show up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not saying they are doing this, but the copyright owner can fork the GPL work and create a closed source version if they want to. The GPL doesn't restrict the copyright owner in any way.
But as GP mentioned, the project has 126 contributors on GitHub who each own part of the copyright. So Muse Group doesn't own the full copyright of Audacity now.
Not sure about this case, but iirc you can have contributors to a project without them owing "part of the copyright" for the stuff they wrote. You just have to make them assign the copyright to you if they want to include their code in the project (they can always fork if they don't like that, but the original authors still get the copyright to the core project).
Also, and orthogonal, a lot of time there are 1-2-5-10 core devs, and the rest 100s are just some small changes here and there, fixes to the documentation, some plugin contribution, etc. In other words, easily writen out, if it comes to that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly relevant, MuseScore has a CLA requiring that all code contributors grant MuseScore the right to use the code in proprietary software. Audacity doesn't have such a clause and I don't know if they'll be able to get past contributors to sign such an agreement.
All 126 of them? Doubtful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You described multiple distinct events. The killing of people was the bad thing. The releasing of code under the GPL is at most a neutral thing.
They are not distinct, stopping the former would also stop the latter, as such they are linked.
They are distinct, stopping the latter would not stop the former, as such they are not linked.
Let me try saying this another way. Tell your story again but where the decision to be involved in open source software was not made. Was the sum total of badness injected into this world quantifiably less?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was mentioning this last time MuseScore appeared on HN - their CEO gave some insight in the comments on how this came to be. Seems to boil down to "music publishing mafia didn't like it", which is understandable. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25825533
This does not excuse > Otherwise, I will have to transfer information about you to lawyers who will cooperate with github.com and Chinese government to physically find you and stop the illegal use of licensed content. part https://github.com/Xmader/musescore-downloader/issues/5#issu... Especially given that person making threats appears to be from Russia and target in China.
He's reporting them to the police of a country for a copyright complaint. The fact that the country is China doesn't mean anything ominous.
Besides the "state persecution" thing, there's regular police and court work in China, every day, for 1.6 billion people, and millions of criminal, civic, business disputes, and other such cases, which is where this will fall into.
That it's China probably makes it even lighter, not harder, since copyright abuses there are seen much more lightly than in the west.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can buy the copyright from the copyright holder(s). That seems quite straightforward if the holder is a single entity, like with Qt, for example. If it's multiple entities, as with Audacity, then in theory it's no different, but practically speaking I'm not sure how they have done this.
They probably hired the main developers and have the copyrights for their work transferred to them. In practice, it has no meaningful impact since relicensing is (nearly) impossible due to the distributed copyright among all contributors of Audacity (which is a good thing!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They likely now own the copyrights held by the primary developers and all the trademark rights to the Audacity name and logo.
How does trademark work when the license is essentially "do whatever you want to do"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe because there are relatively fewer options for free modeling software, compared to the tons of free 2D graphics programs one can choose from? Putting money into Blender helps those companies getting rid of buggy, expensive 3D software. For 2D graphics, they already have plenty of options.
Curious what other free options you mean? Krita, I’m guessing? Other options for raster graphics?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say the GIMP team does understand that and they often put a high focus on UI improvements on their roadmaps. I suppose they just have limited resources to work with.
I really just wish GIMP (and Audacity now that I think about it) had a command palette, where I could type in the name of anything found in the menu or assigned to a keyboard shortcut. I don’t use both of them a lot so all of my time is spent search menus for what I am trying to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find the UI of recent versions of GIMP to be very nice for the simple image editing / processing that I do.
One thing I don't understand is the move to monochrome icons. I'm really bloody good at recognizing shape+color combinations; the old icons were ugly, but I was able to find the tool I wanted in an instant. After the redesign of the icon pack, I always find myself slowly iterating through every icon in the toolbox to try to find the particular abstract monochrome shape I want. I think a redesign of the icons was nece…