This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Graphic design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of graphic design-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
GIMP is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
The article variously states that the GIMP project is conducted under some other banner, either GNOME or GNU. This is going to be confusing to the reader. A clearer statement should be attempted of what the relationships of these projects are. Samsara 11:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that GTK+ is also in the list of GNU software and hosted on git.gnome.org, and is rather a significant part of the GNOME project, being the GUI toolkit used by GNOME.
So I'm not sure what the heck the correct answer is.
According to the GNU Software Evaluation page on the GNU project's Web site, a free-software project can be offered to GNU as a "GNU project", and they decide whether to include it or not. "What it means for a program to be a GNU package" has a bunch of criteria. Some key ones are:
Making a program GNU software means that its developers and the GNU project agree that “This program is part of the GNU project, released under the aegis of GNU”—and say so in the program.
This means that you normally put the program releases on ftp.gnu.org.
This means that the official web site for the program should be on www.gnu.org, specifically in /software/PROGRAMNAME. Whenever you give out the URL for the package home page, you would give this address. It is ok to use another site for secondary topics, such as pages meant for people helping develop the package, and for running data bases. (We can make an exception and put the web pages somewhere else if there is a really pressing reason.)
So, for the GIMP and the GNU Project:
ftp.gnu.org has only a gimp.README file that says "Gimp is an image manipulation program, available from ftp.gimp.org in the /pub/gimp/stable/ directory. The Gimp web site is http://www.gimp.org."; I guess "normally" in "you normally put the program releases on ftp.gnu.org" allows a project not to have ftp.gnu.org be the download site, as long as you at least leave a breadcrumb there to lead people to its true home.
As for the other criteria, they do, at least, say "GNU/Linux" on the features page for the GIMP, and it probably follows the GNU command-line argument standards; whether they use GUILE as an extension language is another matter.
So I guess it could be considered to be a GNU program; I don't know whether anything more than that would be required to be "developed under the GNU banner".
As for GNOME, well, the GNOME Applications page speaks of "Hundreds of applications" that "are available for GNOME", and says that "Here are just some of the great applications that you can use on GNOME", introducing a list that includes the GIMP, but that's not as strong as "applications that are part of GNOME" or "...that are components of GNOME", so they're not as explicitly saying "it's GNOME software" as the GNU folks are saying "it's GNU software".
So, I'd say the case is better for GNU than GNOME, although I doubt GIMP is mentioned in either the GNU project or the GNOME project's weekly staff meetings. :-) Guy Harris (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Might be interesting to have a poll amongst the core (and not-so-core) contributors - as a GIMP contributor, I'm somewhat lost to answer that myself. In daily procedures, GIMP is pretty independent from both GNU (last time we officially contacted them was during the last struggle with SourceForge) and GNOME (we use the infrastructure; but are not in contact much regarding the GNOME desktop itself, for example) - for example, Ubuntu's choice to pack the GIMP translations with the gnome language packs feels really alien to us. --Michael Schumacher (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Problem solved. GIMP is developed independently of both of these organisations and happily associated with both. GNOME is upstream development for GTK/GLIB and also acts as the legal channel which funds for GIMP are maintained. Where GNU/FSF is the idealogical and historically correct banner.
I've changed the text to reflect this as associated with both. Furthermore GNOME is associated with GNU as it was once the GNU Network Object Model Environment. On a side note aren't we all glad GNOME discarded of that frankly disastrous acronym. - WikifyLife (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The WP:LANGVAR change happened here. I disagreed with that edit. Going back, I see that the earliest versions did use Amercian English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
It makes sense. I edited the page to use primarily the Queen's Australian english once upon a time (mate). It's not because I don't think American is a language it was that I refuse to mis-spell everything :). You're right though the page is meant to be (to my bitter dissapointment) mis-spelled :p. - WikifyLife (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The introduction was far superior in January 2015 so I've reverted it manually. In an introduction you really need to give a direct summary.
While this is of little relevance, however, under a previous account I am by far the largest contributor by this article by number of edits once on a previous username and second largest contributor on an unknown IP address (if things are still the same). By this I mean to say I am not just barging in without great consideration towards the quality of the article. I hope you approve of this message :)
Here I removed the 2008/9 reviews and added a more recent one. I feel the old reviews are obsolete now, while the 2013 review largely reflects the same themes, so nothing of importance is lost. GregorB (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)