Artwork for Etch DVDs and CDs

Message

plugwash · #16 Post by **plugwash** » 2007-04-28 01:33

DeanLinkous wrote:
plugwash wrote: even assuming we could scan a label and get results of the same quality as the original image used to make that label
But you arent distributing the original image! You are distributing the paper label. And the source for a paper label IS a paper label. The source for the original graphic is the the original graphic and/or the files used to create it. If (when you handed out a CD) you were distributing a 1200x600 graphic then yes the source would be that 1200x600 graphic and/or the files used to create it. But you are talking about two seperate things.

replace paper label with elf binary in your statement you'd be arguing that open source didn't actually require sourcecode at all.

on what basis do you argue that a label is its own sourcecode and yet an elf binary is not its own sourcecode?

And I offered other solutions as well as the fact HE is the copyright holder and can do what he wants and you have no recourse about it.

and then turn round and sue the redistributors who didn't follow his impractical licensing terms, unlikely but certainly possibel

DeanLinkous · #17 Post by **DeanLinkous** » 2007-04-28 01:43

plugwash wrote: on what basis do you argue that a label is its own sourcecode and yet an elf binary is not its own sourcecode?

First, because programming code and images are two different things. Second, I am not - I am arguing that the source for a work you are distributing is the source for that EXACT work, not the source of something else.

If I make a 2400x1600 .png image and I distribute a 50x50 avatar.png then the source for that 50x50 IS that 50x50 not the 2400x1600 that I shrunk and did NOT distribute. If I offer a download of the 2400x1600 .png then the source for that is the 2400x1600 .png and/or whatever other formats I wish to offer. If someone takes my 2400x1600 .xcf file and makes a 5x5 sticker then why wouldn't the source for that be the 5x5 since that is EXACTLY what he distributed. Why would he be expected to provide the 2400x1600 .xcf since he is not distributing the 2400x1600?

You are talking about two seperate works, and two seperate source(s) IMO.

plugwash · #18 Post by **plugwash** » 2007-04-28 01:48

you have a layered image which you edit, you run that through a flattning process which strips out some informaion and renders what is left far more awkward to edit.

you have some c code which you run through a compiler which strips out some information and renders what is left far more awkward to edit.

what is the difference?

DeanLinkous · #19 Post by **DeanLinkous** » 2007-04-28 01:57

and if I take the binary and using a binary editor I open it and print it off onto a piece of paper, must I also provide the buildable source code with that piece of paper if I hand out the paper?

What if I take a screenshot of GPL covered program must I distribute the source code for the program?

When you print that .png you modify it and make it a new work - the printed image. The only source for that printed image IS the printed image.

Second of all, you need the source code to BUILD that binary. All you need to modify a printed label is....well a printed label.

What if I take a marker and mark on that printed label. What is the source code now? Must I make a digital image of my marker marks to distribute as well?

You're fun.

soldierboy · #20 Post by **soldierboy** » 2007-04-28 02:39

It is because of people (like you two) that we have a need for blood-sucking lawyers on this planet.

DeanLinkous · #21 Post by **DeanLinkous** » 2007-04-28 02:43

Nah....this is just some back and forth fun.

Good discussion. Good explanation that defines the issue. I think we both agree that GPL is not the best license for artwork - neither is the GFDL IMO. So I have decided (due to this discussion) that I will use the Free Art License for graphics from now on and would recommend it to others as well.

Nothing but love for plugwash....

GMouse · #22 Post by **GMouse** » 2007-04-28 06:21

Just be careful not to slip him a subpoena while no one's watching.

chrismortimore · #23 Post by **chrismortimore** » 2007-04-28 06:31

Creative Commons have a license for images.

uhansen · #24 Post by **uhansen** » 2007-04-28 15:56

Interesting discussion. So just in short my point of view:

With licensing the graphics under the GPL I want to enable people to use them, modify them, print them for whatever purpose without giving it a second thought (like what you're used with GPL-software).

If you distribute the graphic FILES (as png, jpg, pdf) to the public you have to provide the source (XCF, PSD, etc.). That can be done (if you didn't modify it) by providing a copy of my xcf or by a link to my page. If you distribute a modified version of the file you should provide a copy of your modified source or be willing to give it out to anyone who asks.

So I see in analogy to the software world a jpeg-picture as binary and a xcf-File as source, containing layers, transparencys, full colour information etc. that gives you a real possibility to change the artwork. Changing a jpeg is of course possible but much inferior to having the source (but of course a lot easier than to disassemble binaries in the software-world).

To hand out CDs or DVDs with the picture on it is in my eyes just a USE of the picture. The purpose is not to distribute the picture but the content of the CDs/DVDs. So it's a bit out of focus to bind anybody to provide source-files of the pictures that are on the CDs they are selling. This is nonsens and I for sure do not want it.

You do not expect anybody to hand out copies of the mozilla-code just for the reason he uses firefox.

So my position is quite clear but perhaps the GPL isn't. Should I give an option to choose between GPL and a CC license?

Ulrich Hansen

DeanLinkous · #25 Post by **DeanLinkous** » 2007-04-28 16:02

I would recommend the Free Art License for graphics but nothing is wrong with your current setup IMO just not a *ideal* license. I personally do not care for the CC because it is so varied I am not sure how well it is understood.

I rarely create xcf files so I have no idea how I would supply them.

Also, if I create a 1600x800 .png image and a .xcf but do not release it but only want to release a 50x50 jpeg then the source for that jpeg is THE jpeg since I may choose to never release the 1600x800. Once you modfy something, it becomes something else and the source for that is not the same as the original. The source for X is the source for X not the source for a printed copy of X.

uhansen · #26 Post by **uhansen** » 2007-04-28 16:08

I see. Maybe making the Free Art License a second option is the best solution. I will decide it when I am back home (at the moment I am on visit in Berlin). Thanks for the hint! Uli.

DeanLinkous · #27 Post by **DeanLinkous** » 2007-04-28 16:35

Dual license or triple license is possibly a idea but likely redundant in the sense of truly free images. The GPL is just awkward when it comes to artistic works because of the idea of *source* but you have it covered IMO. I usually use the GFDL but even that is a bit *weird* as well and I never felt it was a proper license for it either.

AFAIK the FSF recommends the Free Art License, not that the FSF is a guiding beacon but simply that it is a clear indicator that freedoms are upheld with the Free Art License.

Just my overly-opinionated opinion.

hcgtv · #28 Post by **hcgtv** » 2007-04-28 21:24

Nice images, a Live CD one would be welcome.

Thanks.

uhansen · #29 Post by **uhansen** » 2007-04-30 10:10

@hcgtv

A Live-CD label will come the next days. At the moment I am working on covers/envelopes.

@DeanLinkous

The Free Art License sounds OK. A problem I'd have: It seems to require to specify my name on the copies. It's OK if that means only the distribution of the graphic FILES, but I worry it also means you have to mention it on the CD/DVDs as well. I wouldn't want that. Thousands of contributors to Debian should be mentioned first, if you start printing names on the CDs at all.

But perhaps I am just getting it wrong.

Uli

SpEcIeS · #30 Post by **SpEcIeS** » 2007-04-30 19:57

uhansen wrote:I am proud to announce my series of CD/DVD-cover-artwork for Debian/GNU Linux 4.0 "Etch". It's been a lot of work. Please take a look at

http://www.ulrich-hansen.de/etch

There are different designs for each of the multi-arch CDs and DVD, the full 3-DVD-set, the netinst-CD and the 21 CDs. You are free to use them (GNU GPL)

I would be glad to receive some feedback (although I'm on a journey the next days).

Thanks and enjoy it!
Ulrich

Those are some fine CD/DVD labels. Great work.

jobezone · #31 Post by **jobezone** » 2007-05-04 00:12

Pretty nice, especially the envelope covers you provide. I will print them as soon as I can get a hold of a printer to test them (and some thicker paper).
If it looks sturdy, I think I may use your format for future CD's!
A few years ago, I decided I wouldn't be buying more cd boxes, since I could get 50 cd's at a good prize (the one that look like a big salame, which you cut slices off

each slice being a cd) . So I tried to design some sort of cover for them. The problem was, they didn't really envelope the cd fully, they were open on the top. I made many of them by hand, about some dozens. Well, years later, I would regret it, the cd's kept falling off!

Never though about just adding that little "flap" to enclose them snuggly.
I wonder, did you use any template for those kinds of cd covers, or just created them yourself? Did you use glabels for the final stages, or other labeling program, or none at all?

uhansen · #32 Post by **uhansen** » 2007-05-04 02:09

Hi jobezone,

thanks a lot for the encouraging words! At the moment I am still working on the covers - I am now doing the "normal" CD covers. I just finished two different backcover texts, one for the installation disks, one for the others.

You can see a preview of what I am doing at:
http://lazybrowndog.net/etch/etch-norma ... ch-CD1.zip
(5 MB, pdf)

Will take some more time, as I am going on another journey the next 3 days.

The templates are coming from the official cover generator at:
http://debian.semistable.com/cdcover.pl
I convert them from ps to svg and design them with inkscape.

I would be really interested, how the envelope covers print in color. Other than the CDs/DVDs which were color-testprinted in huge amounts (ca. 50 CDs) I didn't find the time yet to do that with the covers. Are the "four freedoms" readable enough? If you find the time, please give a feedback.

Thanks again
Uli

sleepyEDB · #33 Post by **sleepyEDB** » 2007-05-04 14:58

Lavene wrote:That got to be *the best* looking CD covers I have ever seen for a Linux distro. Excellent work!

Tina

Hear, hear!

I especially like the various quotes superimposed on top of the graphic. Very cool effect!

sleepy

uhansen · #34 Post by **uhansen** » 2007-05-08 01:29

Just an update: A few minutes ago I have published also two sorts of covers for each of the CD labels. You find the links under the preview-pictures.

http://www.ulrich-hansen.de/etch

All the covers have now backcover-texts about Debian. Of course the source of the covers is also free for download (GPL).

Ulrich

AgenT · #35 Post by **AgenT** » 2007-05-08 03:20

Very classy. Very nice work!

Debian User Forums

Artwork for Etch DVDs and CDs

Re: Artwork for Etch DVDs and CDs