From: Monica Kraenzle <designhouse@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:51:02 -0300 But now to go to the book page and give a bad rating to say this is bad quality and the gimp developers say this is not an official manual is not the finest way. Do you consider this as fair? Not only to us but also to all the authors who worked on that version? We had to bad intention at all. >From my experience (as the project lead for Gutenprint), it *is* a real problem when well-intentioned distributors use beta (or old) versions of our software, or make changes without discussing them with us. We've had a few cases of this happen, and the result is that users yell at us for something we didn't do. I've fired off a few angry emails of my own to distributors over things like that. Yes, the license allows you to do what you want, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to grab a snapshot and publish it as a book, or to distribute it with changes without clearly pointing out the local customizations. In this particular case, it would have saved a lot of hard feelings (not to mention a good bit of work on your part) to have asked about this before publishing it. If nothing else, you would at least have known what version to publish. -- Robert Krawitz <rlk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@xxxxxxxxxxxx Project lead for Gutenprint -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
