On Wed, 2016-10-26 at 16:06 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Juliette's contributions are high quality contributions, placed under > Free Licenses.
Nobody is arguing that. But there must be room to the question if we can progress a little further after so many years of development and great tools at our disposal. Many talented artists do high quality design work with free software. We don't need to preach water and drink wine. > She even went as far as describing why she's using the tools she's > using ... I expect most of us could tell similar stories. > (Great job at welcoming both real life feedback, and at welcoming > newcomers and new contributors, by the way.) Well, if Juliette still does feel like a newcomer after winning the desktop design contest a second time, then something else must have went very wrong. And being considerate isn't the same as trying to suppress every critical thought. > Should we ban every contribution built on setups using: ... Well, in many cases this in fact might be a good idea. (It surely would have been nonsense twenty years ago. But what was true then doesn't have to be true now.) Besides, you are comparing practically invisible details from insanely many packages with something that is put out as the representation for all of it. It might be hard to ensure nothing ever is created using non-free tools in normal packages. But nobody has suggested to test everything for traces which might hint the use of proprietary tools. We only propose to ask designers to submit layouts they have created with free software. (Maybe some might try to trick us but this is not the point. By asking to use free software only we acknowledge the fact that we can expect good results from work done with free tools.) > Entirely worthless. I strongly disagree. If we want free software to be taken serious in the professional field too, we need to overcome such practices. We can't convincingly on one hand argue that free software enables us to do everything we need to be done and (unnecessarily) use non-free tools at the same time ourselves. This is like teaching children to clean up but not doing it ourselves. This can't work. Such behaviour rightfully can be described as hypocrisy. (We tell others to switch to free software but we ourselves do use it only when it's convenient?) Once more: This is not meant as attack against people doing their first steps. I am happy for everyone moving away from limiting tools and systems. (I myself started from being taught to use only Adobe.) But at the same time I wouldn't deliberately ask novices to represent the work of my department in a crowd of (often hostile) professionals trying to defend their anti-social excluding ways. This can't lead to a good outcome - especially if the novices don't follow our code. In the best case they can illustrate a good will. But I want them to represent the practice. And without actually doing it, this is impossible. Your argument places social considerations over the free software issues itself. In my eyes this turns sensible priorities for the Debian project upside down: The project is mainly about free software and cares only in addition to that about social inclusion. Don't get me wrong: I think it's good to act socially responsible. But if somebody asks me to step down from my main objective to reach the second objective, then I will refuse. (I know the whole point of free software is not technical, but ethical. Nevertheless, you can't take a stand for free software by using something else. This is just not convincing.) In future I don't want to put the result of proprietary tools in our showcase in an attempt to represent the work of the free software community. This is just not necessary any more. It was probably different back when the Debian logo was created. But this isn't true today. As professional designers we are not dependent on non-free tools any more. At least the people who are representing our ideas can be asked to work only with what the free software world has to offer. Nobody forces anyone to make proposals. But we can (and should) ask artists to only submit work created with free software. Only this way we can truly argue that we do not depend on proprietary tools. There is no need for a compromise any more. We should consciously celebrate this achievement. Best, Onsemeliot
