@david@waifu@meeper Graphics Interchange Format is in fact primarily an imaging format (but it sucks and can't even display colour properly - it requires dithering to pretend to show more than a pathetic number of colours - as a result, png has replaced it and thus you don't see it used for images anymore).
It also supports multiple images in the same file, which can be played back as an animation and of course proprietary software programmers only bother to support animations in the gif format, despite all the defects of gif, rather than supporting superior animation formats like MNG, apng & webp.
@phnt@waifu@meeper If it was so garbage, how come some business was able to use it to support a core functionality (which of course would be good if the business respected the freedom of the users)?
I have not done anything proprietary with my profile image like attaching a proprietary EULA.
@pom@waifu@meeper@david >with older machines on pixel art using an indexed color palette (256 colors inclusive) Just because a machine is old doesn't mean there's a reason to use proprietary software.
PNG supports an 8-bin colour pallet without alpha, resulting in a smaller filesize - which can be set in GIMP for pixel art, so gif is worse at that.
@Suiseiseki@waifu@meeper@david GIF is superior if you're working with older machines on pixel art using an indexed color palette (256 colors inclusive) without alpha blending, (A)PNG is superior for literally everything else.
@Suiseiseki@waifu@meeper@david interoperability with older tools I meant, I'm very certain stuff like dpaint on pc doesn't support png but very good odds it supports gif. anyway, it's all a moot point once you start going past the turn of the millennium and support for png becomes ubiquitous.
@Suiseiseki@david@meeper@waifu also gimp is terrible for pixel art, if you wanted to make the non troll version of this argument, at least bring up grafx2 or autodesk animator or something
@Suiseiseki@waifu@meeper@david what difference does it make if the software is offline, feature complete, running on a free operating system, and capable of exporting to interoperable formats like gif and postscript?
@waifu@phnt@meeper A license that forces you to share your changes if you make them is a proprietary license.
Although the "OSI" has approved a few of such proprietary licenses (for example "openwatcom"), the FSF will never assist with or approve anything of the sort; https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Watcom
A free license is a free license, even if it's weak and poorly written.
Evil only results if the developer has intentionally chosen to write software that is guaranteed to take the freedom of billions of users for the purposes of popularity.
@pom@waifu@meeper@david I'm in the GNU/Reality - I have had no problem drawing and manipulating pixel art in GIMP and many of GIMP's image manipulation features only make drawing pixel art better.
You should escape from proprietary workflows to frees workflow.
@Suiseiseki@waifu@meeper@david ok now I know you're living in an alternate reality, for the serious pixeler, it's a dpaint (westie) or mps (japanese) style workflow or nothing. gimp is an image manipulation tool and is tailored to that purpose to the exclusion of niceties for creating new drawings from scratch.
@Suiseiseki@david@meeper@waifu (and I say this as someone who generally defends the usability of gimp in most contexts against adobe baby ducks who denigrate it using forced memes and false narratives)
@pom@waifu@meeper@david I'm in the GNU/Reality - I have had no problem drawing and manipulating pixel art in GIMP and many of GIMP's image manipulation features only make drawing pixel art better.
You should escape from proprietary workflows to free workflows.
@mischievoustomato@phnt@waifu@meeper But it requires to give credit? How is that any different to requiring that the users freedom is respected?
I do not wish for my software to go into an immoral "baby muncher 9000" and I will not implement baby-munching functionality - but legally there is nothing a copyright license can enforce when it comes to private usage of the software.
@Suiseiseki@waifu@meeper >A license that forces you to share your changes if you make them is a proprietary license. Because how dare someone should be forced to publish everything and have stronger copyleft than any GPL license.
@pom@waifu@meeper@david >competent pixeling tools available for free Are they gratis, or are they free?
I suspect they're proprietary and not even gratis either.
>where in my post did I say anything about sticking to proprietary workflows? "it's a dpaint (westie) or mps (japanese) style workflow or nothing." is clearly about sticking to proprietary workflows or nothing.
@Suiseiseki@waifu@meeper@david where in my post did I say anything about sticking to proprietary workflows? on contemporary oses, there are competent pixeling tools available for free, across a number of different workflows, the only question is whether people are aware they exist. even retro oses have a few as well, although unfortunately not nearly as many as I'd like.