On Friday 02 June 2006 23:32, Christoph Sch?fer wrote: > Am Freitag, 2. Juni 2006 07:04 schrieb Christopher Sawtell: > > On Friday 02 June 2006 03:43, pixelnate wrote: > > > >> I think it would be a great feature if scribus could import > > > >> directly from Inkscape and Gimp as happens to Adobe > > > >> applications. Some kind of interativity among the programs. > > > >> S?lvio > > > > > > Another great feature would be cmyk support in both programs, > > > also like in the Adobe Creative Suite. I would much rather see > > > that happen than to get a 'smart objects' feature in each. > > > > Wouldn't we all, but note:- > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantone > > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5283671.html > > The problem with spot colours is that they are protected by > copyrights. While I originally thought this is ridiculous, I have > to admit that it seems reasonable to me now. Companies like Pantone > put a huge amount of work in reliable colour values (and tables) > for output on different devices and on different surfaces. This is > _not_ easy. But the idea of spot colours itself is not patented. It > would be worthwhile to create a free spot colour library, but this > takes time, a _lot_ of work and expensive equipment for testing > purposes. >
This is something we have already discussed on the create project which was an offshoot of some of the Scribus and Inkscape developer's IRC chats. > As for using the CMYK colour space, this isn't problem at all. > Scribus does this for quite some time now. That doesn't mean a > litigous company, some kind of "graphics SCO", will one day _not_ > think about suing FOSS projects for implementing spot colours or > MYK, but none of the Scribus developers is living in the United > States. How would a U.S. law firm try to enforce bogus patents in a > European jurisdiction where software patents are invalid? > > > Which mean that you will have to offer those additions as patches > > delivered from a Free World country. > > > > It's the Intellectual Property Dictatorship which should be > > ashamed of itself, not some poor little, law abiding, FLOSS > > author. > > Be careful with your wording. In Common Law countries "intellectual > property" laws are the only means of defending FOSS! In Roman Law > countries the concept doesn't exist, but the author's rights > applied here provide similar means of defending the freedom of > software. That doesn't mean I want to justify the excesses of MPAA, > BSA and other extortionionists, but IMHO you have to look at both > sides of the coin. > > And, again, implementing CMYK or CIELab (a public standard!) is not > prevented by any (U.S.) patents. > > Cheers, > > Christoph By the way, the list may not be aware that we have started a new Scribus Developer's blog at http://rants.scribus.net This whole thread has motivated me to write a longish essay about this very topic and I hope you will all find it enlightening. Peter
