←back to thread

Inkscape 1.4

(inkscape.org)
561 points s1291 | 3 comments | 13 Oct 24 19:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.713s | source
Show context
Jerry2 ◴[18 Oct 24 03:01 UTC] No.41875999[source]▶
I love Inkscape so much. I use it every other week to make presentations, slides or just simple graphics when I need it. I illustrated my thesis with it.

Another piece of 2D vector software that I use and recommend is Graphite [1]. It too is open source. Graphite has nodes and can be procedural in nature. Have them both in your graphics toolbox.

[1] https://github.com/GraphiteEditor/Graphite

replies(7): >>41876331 #>>41877008 #>>41877032 #>>41877065 #>>41877960 #>>41878245 #>>41879213 #
bubblesnort ◴[18 Oct 24 10:22 UTC] No.41877960[source]▶
Thank you. This is the first time I've heard of the Graphite editor.

I think it could benefit from availability in package reposirories and looking at the license, it appears the program itself is free under the Apache license but the artwork is non-free. It cannot be modified and commercial use is prohibited.

When combined, Graphite as a whole is non-free so I won't be compiling this until the artwork is gone. I'll look into providing some dummy files and see where it goes.

The other packing problem is that there's already a server monitoring program also named Graphite. But given the above, a change of name and new icons would solve both problems.

replies(1): >>41879430 #
1. bobajeff ◴[18 Oct 24 13:45 UTC] No.41879430[source]▶
For those who are confused I believe you're referring to the application logo and branding. So basically the Firefox > Iceweasel case again. While the art you create with it is still yours.
replies(1): >>41881970 #
2. bubblesnort ◴[18 Oct 24 18:10 UTC] No.41881970[source]▶
Of course anything you make yourself is yours. I'm not sure how the license can confuse anyone into thinking it wouldn't be. It likely wouldn't fly with the law anyway. Unless it was all saas.
replies(1): >>41888752 #
3. silverliver ◴[19 Oct 24 16:25 UTC] No.41888752[source]▶
You'd be surprised. There are a lot of people out there (and here) who think that unilaterally-declared LLM licenses can dictate what they are allowed to do with the output. Hell, a lot of people think that LLM's can be copyrightable. Copyright law is very clear about the conditions required for copyright protection, and LLMs fail to satisfy at least two. Even failing one is sufficient (see the Smiling monkey case).