Talk:Pixel image editor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on June 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.


Hmm, isn't this page mostly created by the person who writes (and sells) this software? Surely this goes against Wikipedia policy? --tml

copyrightproblems: the text is the same as on the homepage of the programmer, so i deleted it. http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=9 greets michael

Why is it a problem to have same text here and on that homepage? klakson

Text mentioned few features that are also in wikipedia, now links are missing with text. Author has no problem with his text appearing here.

(please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~, thanks! ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How about re-wording the text? Althepal 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Is it Opensource????

From the article it looks like the program is opensource, because it is written in FreePascal. I assumed it was free as in beer and as in speech.

Someone should mention that it is trialware. Family Guy Guy 17:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Free Pascal refers solely to the programming language, nothing else. --Kiand 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How did you find out?

There's nothing about opensource on this page, you can't expect everything to be opensource. Multiplatformness != opensource

[edit] license

Shouldn't the whole license etc. be on the appropriate web site, not on a encyclopedia?81.70.252.138 01:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use screenshots

Seems like too many screenshots are used here which do not demonstrate how the program works. One OS screenshot is fine, it doesn't have to prove about all operating systems. Althepal 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is the program legal?

This program is pretty much a copy of Photoshop CS2's GUI. I would assume that Photoshop has rights to this exact display, and that copying it would be illegal. E.g., I wouldn't be able to make a program that looks near-identical to Microsoft Word (with the ribbon interface), right? Althepal 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean Open Office? - N1h1l 02:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

One cannot legally control such general things (in a sane state). ¦ Reisio 03:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Open Office doesn't look like Microsoft Office. Maybe it looks like Office XP or 97 or something, but even then, the similarities are not quiet the same as they are with Pixel and CS2. I mean, there is a little picture about the left-side two-column floating toolbar, the color picker looks identical, almost identical layout of (at least much of) the program in general, when it is obvious that the idea was taken directly from cs2. This is not a problem? Althepal 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Is Image:Cs2andpixel.png not enough to say that Pixel copied much off of CS2? The similarities in looks are not necessary for the functionality of Pixel. Althepal 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a legal discussion forum - do you have some action you are trying to promote? If so, state it already. If not, I'd hit up WP:RD if you want answers. ¦ Reisio 01:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry. I was just wondering what other people thought of it. I'm not suggesting any particular action (at least not for now). No need to complain about asking about a program, WP:RD is no help either. It is obvious that certain icons were taken directly from Photoshop, the layout of having a windows within the main window was from photoshop, and much more. Does anybody here happen to know of such aspects of a program are copyright? Althepal 02:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Pavel said that Photoshop's copyrights don't apply to Europe, so that is not an issue for now. Althepal 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "outstrips the GIMP in several key areas"?

I checked the reference to this claim, reference number two, and in the review the only part where they mentioned GIMP was here, page number three. All they said was that pixel provided "tools" for drawing straight lines, something that GIMP also has but is less obvious than having a big icon on the toolbox. I really don't think that having an icon versus a key shortcut would be enough to say that certain product "outstripts" another one in that area, nor I think that drawing straights lines is a "key area" in photo manipulation software. Maybe the Pixel features page would be a better reference, along with pointing the areas where Pixel has better support, like color depth and adjustment layers. If nobody has an objection, I will happily commit this changes. AV-2 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)