Talk:Inkscape/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the first archive of Discussions on Inkscape, dating from before June 2007. For more recent discussions, see the current page.

Contents

[edit] Sodipodi comparison

Please do not remove the link to Sodipodi comparison. That page has nothing un-nice about Sodipodi. If you feel otherwise, just edit it on Inkscape wiki. It is intended to be an objective comparison which is quite relevant for the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trapolator (talk • contribs) 10:33, 1 February 2005

Any one have any idea why the Inkscape download file is over 20MB in size, whereas Sodipodi is <5MB? Quite surprising considering they're supposed to be based on the same codebase. --Rebroad 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding. Even Inkscape's bare source code is about 3 times the size of Sodipodi's by now. That's not counting a lot more documentation, examples, extensions, templates, translations, etc. etc.Trapolator 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong logo

Incidentally, the Inkscape logo image is wrong. That's a proposed HIG-compliant application icon, not the raw logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.185.93 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 July 2005

[edit] Clean up

Some parts of this article need to be cleaned-up / wikified to conform to better standards. In particular the long list of features reads like advertisement or at best product specification; it should be re-made into flowing text to be more in line with what is expected from an encyclopedia...
131.111.8.103 13:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why lists are unacceptable in an encyclopedia. This list in particular does not attempt to list all features, but only the most important and notable ones, and does so in a pretty generalized way to help readers get a general notion of what the program is capable of and how it compares with others. Rewording the same in prose would simply make the same information less structured and harder to digest. Trapolator 19:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I would say to put only the most relevant features in a list (less than 8 items), like: Flowed text, node editing, effects, clones...--Jsanchezd 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you give an example of an article with a feature list that is not a list? I find it very suitable to this type of encyclopedic article. Daniel.Cardenas 18:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I say ¿maybe? compact this feature list and create link ie. •see main artical Inkscape (Feature Listing)• while it is a good listing it, is a bit long(and growing) compared to the full page. --Mkouklis 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Inkscape to this comparison matrix

Could someone help update the Comparison of raster to vector conversion software tables with Inkscape included please? --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 06:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe Inkscape uses potrace and/or AutoTrace to do it's raster to vector conversion, both of which are already in the comparison. Qutezuce 06:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Inkscape uses a built-in version of potrace. silsor 21:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Could someone put a comment to this effect on the respective pages please? My point is to qualify Inkscape as a conversion tool as well (which indeed it is, as a package. Further, being a 2-valued images output tool, potrace recommends Inkscape (and sodipodi) for conversion and color editing. Ref:[1]). Let me know of any disagreements. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 07:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compat

Threw something up to let people know that newer versions seem to no longer support win95,98,ME. Probably should go in other places as well. Wasted a nice chunk of my time, might as well try to save some other folks the bother.;)

[edit] SVG template and article at Red Hat Magazine

I believe the SVG templates at WorldLabel.com and the Inkscape article at Red Hat Magazine are relevant as far as external link is concerned. Elementary the article may be, but it discussed right on the topic. Zero0w 17:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue about the Red Hat Magazine article if several people consider it sufficiently relevant. I reremoved the WorldLabel which has random SVG documents that simply happen to have been done using Inkscape.--Chealer 19:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I double-checked the SVG samples at WorldLabel.com, I think you got a point. The SVG samples are not particularly impressive, nor worthy of mentioning. We already have a see also entry to Open Clip Art Library, and that will be sufficient to demonstrate what one can draw using Inkscape. --Zero0w 15:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to inscapeforums.com

I reverted the addition of a link to [2] by User:Corstar, which was added again by him, adding the comment in the page "please leave on wiki". I'm removing this link again, as the forum only contains 67 articles ATM. If anyone wants to add the link back, please justify why this link would be pertinent on Wikipedia but not on inkscape.org, rather than asking to keep something added without explanation (duh).--Chealer 02:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

After searching on the web, it looks like [3] (the spelling of your link is wrong, btw) is one of the few forums available for Inkscape discussion. As for why this is "on Wikipedia but not on inkscape.org", maybe you should check out many other software articles on Wikipedia and ask the same questions. I think it can be on both Inkscape.org and Wikipedia, as long as it is relevant and does not sidetrack from the topic.
I do check out many other articles on Wikipedia and ask the same questions. If it can be both on Inkscape.org and Wikipedia, it should be added to Inkscape.org first. It *can* be on the article, but it's better to not have it unless it's also *sufficiently* relevant.--Chealer 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow why it should be added to Inkscape Wiki first, unless there is some other guideline at works. For what's worth, Wikipedia is the best source of information on OpenDocument around the web. And I don't see people raising the issue that the content or links to OpenDocument sites should be added to other sources first. --Zero0w 12:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, if you believe that inkscape.org is missing the link and it's Wikipedia's role to backup for it, please ignore my first sentence, and only consider the second.--Chealer 07:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't checked inkscape.org, I merely raised the issue of why it has to be on inkscape first. As far as I can see, that forum is on topic and relevant. --Zero0w 07:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't *have* to be added on inkscape.org first, but as Wikipedia isn't the canonical source of information about inkscape, it *should* be added there if it's relevant. Again, "it's better to not have it unless it's also *sufficiently* relevant."--Chealer 20:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Btw, your comment actually brings up a question: how many articles in a forum is enough to justify for adding a link on Wikipedia? Is there some kind of standard setting (other than relevancy) going on for filtering links? --Zero0w 14:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
No. I try judging relevance at my best. In this case 79 articles are not much IMO compared to the size of Inkscape.--Chealer 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You haven't really answered the questions, I mean, fairly speaking, how many articles are enough to justify? How big is a forum / community to be considered relevant if the subject of the forum itself is already on topic and there's not many forum out there focused on the Inkscape at the moment? There must be some more objective reasoning or gauging, otherwise neither side is convincing at best. --Zero0w 12:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless you're asking for a simple number, could you clarify the unit of the ratio you're asking for?--Chealer 07:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
A figure is one of the more objective measure, but not the only measure. Still I am sure there will be dispute if you can call something "sufficiently" relevant when there's really no criteria for such meaurement. I think I'll ask other Wikipedian to join us and look at the situation, as I take a literally different point of view from yours. I am sure more discussion from other experienced Wikipedians will help to clarify whether we can measure it so that people don't feel they are under restraint to post on Wikipedia if any rule(s) (besides WP:NPOV) is to be followed. --Zero0w 07:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Hum, if I understand you well, you're dropping your request about the minimal relevance needed. Now, about the dispute, it can happen, but this isn't a problem. It takes energy to enforce Wikipedia standards, and I'm ready to argue, although it's always hard to argue about something as hard to evaluate as the relevance with non-subjective arguments. But as long as it's discussed in the Talk page as it should, there's not problem.--Chealer 20:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the link removal. I do NOT think whether or not the forums are linked to from any inkscape page is relevant to whether it should be included (indeed, both cases to keep it or eliminate it can be made based on this). I do not think this forum has a "critical mass" (which directly relates to number of topics, posts, and users), nor that it particularly helpful to people who want to learn more about Inkscape (something which is much more important for WP and isn't related to any of those things). Also note that other pages have also recently been spammed with these tiny phpforums pages. --Karnesky 14:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Open source" or "free software" in intro?

I've noticed some back and forth editing as to the introduction description of Inkscape as being "open source" or "free software". Open source is technically more descriptive and follows Inkscape's website, but doesn't indicate if it is completely free or if there are some pricey add-ons. "Free software", on the other hand, gives you that information but lacks data on whether the program is open source or proprietary. I personally favor the term "open source" because that generally indicates completely free, while free doesn't always mean open source. Furthermore, "Inkscape is a free software vector graphics editor." doesn't read as smoothly as "Inkscape is an open source vector graphics editor." What's more, the term "open source" is used more often than "free software" in the beginning of a program's description. (The fact that it is completely free can be mentioned elsewhere in the article.) Let us come to a consensus and set the opening sentence's wording once and for all so we can avoid an edit war and get the best result. --Althepal 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Free software is software that comes with source code that can be modified and redistributed by the recipient. "open source" was coined in 1998 for a marketing campaign for free software. IMO, wikipedia should use the original name, "free software", not the name of a marketing campaign. I haven't been involved in editing this article, so I can't speak for the people involved. Gronky 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are mistaken. Open source, as opposed to proprietary, means the source code for the program (the stuff the program is made of) is available to the public. Proprietary means that the code is kept private. These terms do not necessarily reflect whether the program is free or costs money. Proprietary could be either one, open source is generally free. Althepal 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite sure I'm not mistaken. You can read it in the free software article. "Free software" is an idea launched in 1983 by Richard Stallman. In 1998, some companies launched a marketing campaign whose goal was to push for free software adoption, but under the name "open source". Software that comes at no cost is "freeware". Gronky 02:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Here, how does this sound?: Inkscape is a free, open source vector graphics editor.

That makes use of synergy, is most accurate and informative, and reads nice and smoothly. I believe that the the word "free" could be removed without detracting from the article, but "open source" could not. Althepal 02:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If "free software" is mentioned, "open source" is redundant. Gronky 02:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW, calling Inkscape "freeware" is inaccurate. Inkscape comes with all the freedoms of free software, which include the freedom to sell copies for any price. So you might download Inkscape off the Internet for no cost, or it might come as part of a GNU/Linux distribution that you might of paid for, or you could buy it from me on a street corner for €1k. Gronky 02:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying to choose between "free software" and "open source", and that a combination is redundant. In that case, what do you think reads better, "Inkscape is a free software vector graphics editor," or "Inkscape is an open source vector graphics editor." You'll agree, won't you, that the latter does indeed read better. Althepal 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded the intro and reorganised it to be more similar to other free software articles. I'm agreed with Gronky on the general principle of using free software and not open source here; both are jargon terms, so they're as good as each other in general, and Inkscape is under the canonical free software licence so should be labelled as such. Chris Cunningham 10:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Nobody really agreed upon using "free", but okay. IMHO, "open source" would be better than "free", but "free software" doesn't read well at all. (The thing is that "open source" usually refers to software while "free" doesn't. "Free software" does but it doesn't read well.) Shouldn't "free" link to free software, freeware, or open source, so people can find out exactly what is meant by that word? -Althepal 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, because the first "free" refers to the general property of inkscape that it is available gratis. The license boilerplate uses the appropriate jargon for the source model. Again, the term "free software" is no less opaque than "open source" to ignorant parties, and software which is available under the GPL is explicitly free software over and above the guarantees given by the open source moniker. Chris Cunningham 09:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
utterly wrong. free has the same meaning of free speech and not free beer. See my comment below on the difference between open source (not necessarily free like in free speech) and free software (free like in free speech but not necessarily free like in free beer). For a GPL program like Inkscape, free software is the proper term, open source only would be wrong. --Huygens 25 09:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If the first "free" refers to gratuity, then it is both incorrect and out of place (even if it were correct). Nothing stops me from burning Inkscape into a CD and actually selling it, so gratuity depends on who you contact to get a copy. What defines Inkscape as a piece of software is that it is free (as in Freedom), not its price tag, which is accidental (deriving from it being free software, not the other way around). I'm changing the first paragraph to reflect this. By the way, I think Althepal above is mistaking concepts seriously. Anything that is free software is open source, but not the other way around. FS is about freedom (which implies accessible code), but OS is about the code being accessible (which does not guarantee that a program be free to modify or redistribute). — Isilanes 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree that a link for "free" here is useful. But "Inkscape is a free software vector graphics editor" does not read well AT ALL (too redundant). Remove the word "software" and link that, and it would be okay. But to tell you the truth, the SOURCE code for Inkscape is OPEN to the public - it is more than just free software. I strongly agree with the origin version of "Inkscape is an open source vector graphics editor" (with "open source" linked), and I should like very much to change it. The only reason I don't is because I want everybody to agree on something HERE before people edit the intro ANY MORE. Now, open source does always mean it is free, and as the open source article states, this is for collaborative development of Inkscape. Inkscape is not proprietary, and replacing "open source" with "free" reduces accuracy (but at least link free to the free software article to clear that up). Replacing it with "free software", though, even if free software is accurate, does not read nearly as well as "open source". Althepal 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the gratis reference again. The main issue was that the first sentence looked a bit short. I've slightly fattened it up. Chris Cunningham 10:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "[...]the SOURCE code for Inkscape is OPEN to the public - it is more than just free software.". Althepal, you are sourly mistaken. Inkscape (and all free software) is free as in freedom, which is actually more, not less, than having a source code that is "open". Further discussion is futile if you do not understand that. Do not read free as gratis (free of charge), but as libre (enjoying liberty). An open code is a requirement for a piece of software to be free (not gratis, but libre). However, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the software to be free. On the other hand, it is true the other way around: being free software is sufficient (but not necessary) condition for a piece of software to have its code open.
"Inkscape is not proprietary, and replacing "open source" with "free" reduces accuracy"'. No! The antonym of proprietary software is not open source, but free software. Open source is the antonym of closed source. Once and again: some program being proprietary or not is all about Freedom, about what you can or can't do with it, and about who is the "owner" of it. If a program is proprietary, it has an owner, who can grant and deny users arbitrary rights upon the program. If it is free, it doesn't. Having access to the source code (e.g., being open source), does not take away those arbitrary powers of the "owner" of the program, and thus (unless the four freedoms are granted to the user), such a program would not necessarily be free. — Isilanes 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is the clarification of the 2 terms and the solution. open source means that one can access the source code, but one is maybe not free to modify it, re-use it and even one may have to pay for it. On the other side free software means that one is free to use it for any purpose which implies also that he can modify the code, re-use the code or part of it, but with some restriction (like using the same software licence and/or giving credits to the original author, etc.) free software are in general free of charge, but nothing stands against requesting a payment against them. For example, you could give out the source code for free, but the installable package requires a payment. So to summarise, if a company releases an open source software, it could force you to pay for it, whereas if a company release a free software, it cannot force you to pay for the code, but it could force you to pay for a binary version of it, and for the code you are sure to be able to freely use it. Nowadays, to avoid confusion and misunderstanding, there is the term Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) which clearly state that those software (and Inkscape is one example) are free (like in a free speech) and open source. Basically all software released under a BSD or GPL licences (or many others) are FOSS. --Huygens 25 09:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I forgot one point, if you are interested to know more about free software, I recommend the Free Software Foundation web site and in particular the definition of free software:

"Free software is a matter of liberty not price."

--Huygens 25 09:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "FOSS" is a clearer term. And I should point out that your definition of "open source" is incorrect. You've taken an intuitive interpretation of the words "open" and "source", but the actual definition of the term "open source" does not correspond to that definition (such misinterpretation is unfortunately widespread). "Free software" and "open source software" are actually two terms for the same thing. The latter was explicitly defined as being a replacement term for the former. Thus using both terms (as "FOSS" does) is redundant. People don't expect redundancy in terms, so this leads people to expect if both are used simultaneously, they must have different meanings. One possible confusion is that "free" "open source software" is the "open source software" that costs nothing. The same problem exists with "FLOSS", which is triply redundant. Some people have concluded that the "L" stands for "Linux", thus FLOSS is incorrecly thought to be free software that runs on GNU+Linux.
In reality, there is no term that expresses the full meaning of free software. I've found "free software" to be the easiest term for people to understand. It has to be explained - just like "open source software", "FOSS", and "FLOSS" have to be explained, but the explanation is easier to understand properly because the term only has a binary ambiguity (no cost vs. unfettered/freedom) which can be clarified, unlike "open source" which has a contradictary name (source that is viewable). Gronky 11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You have taught me something today about the "open source" definition :) I went to see on the Open Source Initiative web site to check what you were asserting. And you seem correct:

"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: Free redistribution [...] derived work [...]"

My apologise. So you're right about the FOSS redundancy. And I agree that free software is most probably better than open source, even if both are pretty similar in the end. But Inkscape is GPL, which is a licence originated by the FSF who promotes the term "free software". The FSF states on this subject:

"Another group has started using the term "open source" to mean something close (but not identical) to "free software". We prefer the term "free software" because, once you have heard it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word "open" never does that."

--Huygens 25 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
On OpenSSH, Thumperwad chose the term which the project applies to themselves. This seems to be pragmatic. If we did the same here, we'd pick "open source." Which open souce licenses aren't free and vice versa?--Karnesky 16:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There are one or two licences that are FSF approved but not OSI approved, and one or two that are OSI approved but not FSF approved, and those few licences aren't used for any widely used software. So the distinction can be safely ignored. But many people don't recognise OSI as being the cananical judge of what is "open source", and OSI have not corrected mis-uses of the term, so that term has become fuzzy. "Free software" is a more defined term. Gronky 17:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
As the articles on both free software and open source state, both terms are ambiguous. Indeed, I think there is more proprietary freeware that is labeled "free" than source-included (but not free) software that is called "open source." I don't think there is a strong reason to pick one instead of the other for all articles except for personal preference. It'd be nice to establish some criteria so that this personal preference doesn't cause revert wars that are only won by whoever reverts the most number of times. I see three possibilities:
  • use both terms
  • use the term the software developers use
  • not tolerate any changes to articles which only change this term
Karnesky 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Using both terms is the best of those options. But again I think free software is the right thing to link to. "open-source software" is just a marketing campaign for free software. The open-source software article should be about that marketing campaign (and it partly is). "Free software" is about software that can be modified and redistributed. Gronky 18:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"Free software" is not an ambiguous term. It is a piece of well-identified computer terminology. Once again, if it's GPL then free software is the best term to use unless there's specific reason to believe that upstream doesn't share the particular goals of the FSF. Chris Cunningham 18:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You and I may understand and properly use the FSF meaning of free software, but this is very different from saying that everyone always uses the term this way. There is definite semantic ambiguity in the English word "free." Not to single him out, but even after the discussion on this page, Althepal miscategorized a freeware program into a free software category. (I should stress that 'm fine with the cats named as they are, but it is silly to think that the term is used consistently (even by computer/software developers and enthusiasts!).
And what are your thoughts of other license? Other editors have been replacing "open source" or "free and open source" (or other variants) with "free software" on all pages where software is licensed under the MPL or BSD licenses (and, possibly, other Free licenses which aren't GPL/LGPL). This seems both biased and petty to me. --Karnesky 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Articles on chemistry assume some level of familiarity with the subject. I'm generally opposed to dumbing-down CS articles on the principle that they could be read by inexpert users because this doesn't seem to negatively impact other subjects too much.
As for other licences, I consider articles on an individual basis. OpenSSH is technically free software because it's upwardly-compatible with the GPL, but it would be poor form to ascribe to it an ideology which its community explicitly stands separate from to some extent. Chris Cunningham 18:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"Free software" can be ambiguous. There are two possible meanings, so you have to clarify that it is freedom, not cost. "Open source" actually suggests an incorrect definition about source code being open. So to explain the former, you say "free speech, not free beer", but to explain the latter, you have to start by saying that source code being open is not sufficient to make the software open source. This is a self contradicting term. But the more important issue is that "open source" has been let get fuzzy. I'm not the only one who thinks this:
It's not about source code being open, it's about what users are free to do. Gronky 18:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
To play devil's advocate, allow me to paraphrase what you just said.....to explain the latter, you say "OSI-certified license," but to explain the former, you have to start by saying that having zero cost does not make the software free. The only reason "open source" is being diluted is because it is the more commonly used term. Magazines like the one mentioned in the O'Reilly Radar piece aren't writing puff pieces on "free software companies," so as to conflate developers/distributors of free software with those who merely leverage free software.
If we are to assume a level of familiarity, either term is completely redundant to explicitly stating (and wikilinking to) the particular software license. To people who understand what "free software" is, I think "Inkscape is released under the GNU General Public License" is just as clear as, but more concise than "Released under the GNU General Public License, Inkscape is free software." --Karnesky 19:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"OSI-certified licence" says nothing about what the "open" in "open source" means. And the article is written for the general public, so we can't assume they know what the GPL is.
"open source software" is an obstacle to understanding because under no circumstances does it ever tell you what it's definition is. Neither term does, and no term could, fully explain the common concept they refer to, but at least "free software" has a link between the term and the meaning. Gronky 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think the word "free" being ambiguous in English is a sufficient reason. After all, there are other languages out there, you know, and they do not share this problem. I can't see why we should use software de código abierto in Spanish, instead of software libre (which is unambiguous), just because in English OS is "preferred" over FS. And using software libre in Spanish, and then translating that to open source in English would be equally silly. The solution is not to avoid the word "free", but to educate the reader into knowing that this word has more meanings that just "free of charge". After all, an encyclopedia should... well, should educate, shouldn't it?
However, I have a stronger pro-free software argument. I think it is obvious that the terms OS and FS either mean the same (or almost the same) thing (Case I) or they don't (Case II). If they do not mean the same thing, then either FS is a more strict definition (all FS is OS, but software can be OS w/o being FS, Case II.a), or the other way around (Case II.b), or they mean completely different things (Case II.c). There is quite an ample agreement on Case II.a (FS + OS = FS > OS), but I am yet to hear anyone supporting Case II.b (OS > FS) or Case II.c (OS != FS). It is also clear that any software under a free license (GPL or other) is FS, and, under Case II.a, it would be incomplete to call this software OS, and redundant to call it FS+OS. The other possible scenario would be Case I, where they mean exactly the same thing, or something so similar that it takes a lawyer and a fair amount of drugs to tell. In that case, we must all agree that the term FS takes precedence, since it is both fairly older, and more faithful to the spirit of the concept (that same concept both OS and FS describe), which is software that doesn't cut the user's Freedom. Heck, "free software" is almost a book definition in itself! In Case I, using OS instead of FS would be technically correct, but hardly neutral, since in would imply a bias against the original term for that concept. Moreover, I could invent the term "isilanes software", and say that it means exactly the same as FS and OS, and start changing the Wikipedia articles to refer to this term, then complain if changes get reverted, saying that "isilanes software" is an equally valid term.
As can be seen, OS would almost never be acceptable as a FS substitute, except in Case II.b (whenever something fell into both OS and FS definitions, but the hypothetical OS definition would be more precise) or Case II.c (whenever something could be labeled as OS, but not FS, because hypothetically they would be different definitions). Whenever none of this two cases holds, "open source" should be deprecated. — Isilanes 10:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You want a prescriptive solution. The problem is that it can be countered with an argument for a different prescription. (While "free software" is older, "open source" is more commonly used).
I'd prefer a descriptive solution. Both terms are in common usage and we should not pick one for mere advocacy reasons.
Foreign languages are not relevant here--this is an English encyclopedia. There are many foreign terms that are not mere literal transcriptions of English terms.
An encyclopedia should be a topical reference. There's as little reason to teach people about free software as there is to teach them about open source in many article that you arbitrarily changed.
While free software and open source software are very similar, neither is a subset of the other. As such, it isn't any more redundant to use both terms than it is to use one of them in conjunction with the license that it is under.
The "isilanes software" argument is also nonsense--we have policy regarding neologism.
Once society deprecates the term "open source," feel free to "deprecate" it from WP.
Karnesky 16:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Good points there, but I am not convinced. You berate my "isilanes software" argument, but it is a non sequitur. The term "free software" was introduced in 1983, along with the actual free software, that is, the concept it referred to. 15 years later, some bright guys invented the "open source" term out of the blue, to quote the Open Source Initiative article "to introduce a new marketing term for free software, seeking to position it as business-friendly and less ideologically loaded". That is, they introduced a neologism with some ideological agenda behind. In 2007 (when "FS" is 24, and "OS" 9), "isilanes software" could be a neologism, but OS surely was back in 1998. Where can we stop calling upon the anti-neologism principle to deprecate terms? Clearly when the concept behind the mere term was introduced: 1983. Using "OS" to refer to "FS" is POV-pushing against the original term. The term FS was not invented "against" the term OS, but rather the other way around. This is accepted by the very OSI. And we are following their agenda, in the name of this term being "more widely used".
Additionally, when I mention "teaching" I (as you must have understood) don't mean to teach what "free software" is, but rather what the word "free" means. The poor excuse of a reason that "free software" could be understood as just "freeware" is as lame as proposing that the USA anthem should be changed from "the land of the free" to "the land of the open source", because "free" conveys the idea of "free of charge".
When someone licenses her software under the GPL, a license created by the Free Software Foundation, to give a legal body to free software, I think that this is a hint that what she is licensing is "free software", not "open source" software. Should the OSI introduce an Open Source License, and should someone license her work under the OSL, I'd be glad to accept that this piece of software would be "open source". But in the meantime, removing "free software" from a GPL'ed software article is neologism-pushing and non-neutral POV, and mentioning "free and open source" is redundant, if what the Open Source Definition article says about all FS being OS is true. — Isilanes 19:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. We're writing an encyclopedia for now, not 1998. "Open source" is in common usage now. If some other term gains even more wide-spread acceptance, I see no reason that WP shouldn't adopt it in the future.
I develop GPLed software. I contribute support, code, and money to various other free/open source projects. When I do this, I certainly don't think I'm helping "free software" and not "open source." I'm supporting both. The fact that so many other developers of GPLed software state that their projects are "open source" suggests they think that they are also supporting "open source" instead of or in addition to "free software."
I am not planning and would not advocate the removal of "free software" from articles. I am trying to dissuade you (and others) from removing "open source" from articles. --Karnesky 20:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It was me who removed the term from the article, and I did so for reasons of precision and style. I'm not a GNU fanboy and I hate prescription in articles. I don't think both terms are required when a) they're both jargon terms, b) free software implies open source, and c) the license is explicitly a free software license. Chris Cunningham 10:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tutorials

can you add tutorials (I mean, links to tutorials)? thanks Towsonu2003 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In a word, no. Wikipedia is not a portal site. Tutorials aren't appropriate external links. Chris Cunningham 09:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh, what? Where did you get that idea? There's nothing wrong with linking to good instructional materials. Wikipedia is a learning resource.--Eloquence* 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Tutorials don't fall under any of the "what should be linked to" criteria for extlinks, and unofficial ones fail #13 on the avoid list in that they aren't symmetrically linked to the project. Tutorials are purely prescriptive, and I've never seen justification that they're acceptable. Given the general policy of keeping extlinks to a minimum, the doubt factor has always seemed sufficient to me.
That, and you added in a duplicate link to the project website. I've removed both these links. Chris Cunningham 09:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:External links, "what should be linked": "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." We are talking about a copyrighted ebook about Inkscape. This is exactly covered by this definition. I've restored the link; please do not continue to remove links to useful information.--Eloquence* 09:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
A tutorial is not an "online textbook". For the sake of not really caring I'm going to drop this, but if (as usual) the number of external links starts creeping up again I won't pause before pruning them. Chris Cunningham 10:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice the two little words "such as"? Do you realize that this a guideline? Not everything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden. The external links guideline is conservative due to spam, links to dead forums, personal blogs with little added value, and a tendency for such linkcruft to accumulate. Freely available learning resources of high quality are exactly the kind of complementary content we should look for. In this case, it could even be listed in a separate "Further reading" section, since it is a self-published book that can also be ordered online.
I've cleaned up many a link section myself. When doing so, I try to look at each link and try to figure out whether the average reader is likely to find it useful. This, for example, is not true for the comparison to Sodipodi. Sodipodi is an old program that hasn't seen new releases since 2004, and the comparison is just one of many pages on the Inkscape wiki. The average reader is unlikely to see much value in it. On the other hand, a free (as in beer) full-text guide to Inkscape that goes beyond the official documentation? That is exactly the kind of stuff that we should scout the web for. --Eloquence* 10:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons with other graphics editors?

The article would benefit from a section Comparisons with other graphics editors like in GIMP.--Hhielscher 13:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to archive this talk page?

Requesting an ADMIN archive this talk page It's getting hard to follow --Mkouklis 08:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No admin is required. You can do it yourself. --Zundark 08:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I archived this page per Mkouklis' request. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 21:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)