@PhotoComix

What you say is completely false. I never asked Honkel Hatti remove these compilations.
The purpose of the GPL is that everyone can use a source code. For example, it was very simple to compile for Linux users. In addition there is no problem to publish source code and patch files.

Hmm so are you saying that Honkel Hatti's compiles for windows may include some extra files, and small tweaks that are not listed in source code for all to see, or maybe the program may use utilities produced under different licenses by unknown third party sources.

Because of unseen source code in build, Just curious what is the differences between Honkel Hatti's compiled version and the latest Source code provided at http://sourceforge.jp/projects/gimp-painter/ by sigetch and the official gimp build?

So what the GPL needs is a list of changes made with a side by side comparison of code and compatible third party changes to program?
is it possible to decompile sourcecode used by Honkel Hatti then open as a word document side by side with original source code doc. then use compare options in word document to show difference in code? similar to provided link.http://www.codejacked.com/comparing-two ... -document/

@Samj


what is false ?
I never , never said that you ask to remove the files !!
yes you make notice that the GPL requirement were not literally fulfilled , and that may even be correct AFAIK

and yes i dislike what followed the removing of the files but that was Onkel reaction and chose not your request



Not exactly let me explain again :
Onkel used the original source code, that is Open Source and could be found on gimpainter repository on sourceforge
Then applied some changes, and provided all documentation of changes

But the point that he provided as .diff files , were diff mean Differences, that BTW is the format requested by gimp developers to propose patch (=changes)
Instead following a strict interpretation of the GPL requirement seems that the patch should be merged with the code


A example help, i did a little hack so the only difference from mine and original source were in a line and consist in 2 modified numbers ...no any change to the other gazillion of lines of the gimp code ...diff is a hady format to document that,is something that means

" the difference is here at line xxxx here"preview W 800 preview H 600",(instead of "preview W 100 preview H 100" ,[b][i]
only thatthe rest is identical to the original source code

But seems that instead to respect GPL the change should be applied not only documented so i must copy also that gazillion of line of code even if the rest is identical to the well know gimp or gimpainter source code

Samj already explained this maybe more exactly and clearly then me

Translate this concept to not lawyers and not developer is very difficult so i beg pardon for the simplification i was forced to do

Yes, thats right, I removed the compilations.
As I do not know, if I break the GPL with these unofficial releases, I withdrew the files.
Maybe I will make a new compilation with the patched sourcecode in it. I don't know.

I talked to a gimp developer on IRC (Schumaml) and he agreed that my compilations were against the GPL:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... convenient

is the corresponding entry in the GPL FAQ

I really don't understand why this against the GPL if you provided the CHANGED src code with the builds.Just include the changed C src code as a separate download. When i changed the src files for the larger previews i made i just included the changed src with the binary download.

Here is a screenshot of the official Gimp-Painter-2.6.11 version builds for Mac and Windows



Personally i think Onkels version should be the official 2.8 build. The Official hasn't even passed Gimp-2.6.11 yet. The genius of adding the Mypaint engine alone is enough to surpass Gimp-2.6.11 Painter in my humble opinion.
Was adding the Mypaint engine the reason for the GPL conflict? I thought Mypaint was also under GPL.

Mypaint is open source , the reason of all this is what explained early by Samj (diff vs modified source code)

And BTW there is some confusion about GPL and Open Source, are NOT synonymous ,not at all:
as example GMIC is open source but is not GPL and if i remember well there are at least 3 different GPL , gimp should be GPL 3 but what a debate about time ago because some found GPL3 too restrictive

And are dozens of (more or less GPL compatible) licences usable for Open Source programs

@Rod
The development seems to be still active :
http://fr.sourceforge.jp/projects/gimp- ... inter-2.7/

So i wonder why they have not compiled/released any windows versions for it yet.

hmm any one who knows Japanese willing to ask?

Maybe there's no incentive to compile, if others are not contributing enough then coding may be done during free time hoping more coders may show interest,Even if few are showing much interest, I imagine some coders still want to press on to reach the full potential because so much time will and effort that went into the work already.
I appreciate the hard work that went into Gimp-Painter.

I hope Gimp-Painter is born to its full potential someday.
I wonder if the latest source is still based on gimp 2.8.3
just curious.

It is active
You don't see new version because are not needed :
Gimpainter consist mainly in 2 additional tool and last gimp update didn't broke them so there is not need to update.

And there are recent Windows version, for sure some by Samj

Sadly the Gimp Painter link to Onkels version is not working anymore. Did Onkel remove it?

@ROD

Yes he did.
It seems that what i written about was misinterpreted, so i want remark again that nobody, no samj , not gimp developers as individual or group forced or even suggest their removal

it was Onkel decision motivated by a unexpected problem regarding the documentation of the modified source code :

usually is trvial obtain the modified source code ( requested by GPL ) from the patches + original code,

Alas not in this case : Onkel wrote the patch against some mini GIT version that he forgot to bookmark, ... and so patches could not be automatically applied and the modified source can't be recovered



Anyway there are good news too , if Onkel Hatti removed his older files but similar problem , already uploaded 2 new "gimp 2.8.11" build (this time completed with sources )

Alas no yet a Gimpainter build , neither is promised one soon ,
yet i cross my finger and i hope for the best because i will really like a updated version of Gimpainter including Onkel hacks.

Not sure if rain dances will help in this case

Anyway the removed version works well even if was based on 2.8.3 , actually i am using it
you should have no problem to find on GC somebody that may share his copy
(My copy is too heavily modified and many are unfinished tweaks )

It would be a nice Christmas gift to have a new version

That's my Christmas wish also.
I knew i shouldn't have removed my version for space.
I only have 18 gigs to work with though. I figured i would just re install it but i couldn't find it.

Is Gimp Painter only available in Windows and not Linux?. I might have asked this before but I watched a couple u-tube vids and it looks quite interesting.

I am almost positive you could download the src and compile it for Linux providing you have the correct libs already installed. PM Onkel and ask which dependencies it needs and install those first. Then ask him for his src files he added the paint engine to.
That should work.

Thank you

Nearly a year after my last post in that thread, i'm still using Onkel Hatti Gimp Painter build for win32 , and everytime i'm amazed at how genius it is to be able to switch between the gimp and the mypaint engine for the brushes.

Even a year after, it's definively the best Gimp i ever used, still can't believe the gimp/mypaint switch that is so brillant and work so well hasn't been included into the main Gimp .

Thank you again to everyone code that contributed into making what is to me the most amazing version of Gimp !