Image on main page has Adobe metadata

[William Vann]

I am filing this bug report out of concern. Several members of Ubuntu forums have discovered that some of the images (specifically http://www.ubuntu.com/themes/ubuntu07/images/masthead-home-feisty.jpg and others found in the art wiki) on the Ubuntu and related web sites have Adobe "meta data" in them (a link to thread in which this is being discussed: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=453120&highlight=Adobe&page=3). Evidence for this comes by viewing the image data with any hexadecimal editor, upon which, amidst the garbled characters, one will find the word "Adobe". According to these members, this would indicate that these images were made not with the GIMP program, but with Adobe Photoshop and related products. This is cause for some concern, as it would seem that one of the core philosophies of Ubuntu, that free (as in speech) software should be promoted over their proprietary alternatives, might have been violated. I say "might" because it is not yet clear under what circumstances these images where made (ie if Canonical itself made them). If it turns out that Canonical contracted out a professional artist to produce the images, then that is well; our software solutions should not be FORCED onto others if they are more comfortable with a proprietary solution. But if Canonical made those images, then a grave offense has been committed; that of hypocrisy. Any entity, whether it be a company, or an individual, should be willing to stick by its principles unswervingly, or modify its principles if that proves impossible. This should be especially true of any entity that counts itself among the advocacy for open source software. The world needs convincing of the inherent superiority and power of open source; how can Canonical accomplish this if it will not even use open source software?

Sometimes, in certain situations, the use of open source software is just not possible. Perhaps it lacks a critical feature, or is just not stable enough. When faced with this dilemma, one has but two choices: use a proprietary solution (if one exists), or abandon the project. If this was the same dilemma Canonical was faced with in the attempt to produce images for its web site, then I applaud them. When it comes to such situations, I am always in favor of getting the job done, even if closed source software is the only way to go. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear if the open source offering (the GIMP) was in fact incapable of handling the work Canonical needed done. I myself cannot answer this, as I have not used the GIMP enough to know. It is, however, the opinion of one forumer on Ubuntuforums.org that the GIMP could have handled the tasks Canonical needed completed.

And so it all boils down to this: did Canonical in fact forsake its open source philosophy? If the answer is yes, then it needs to change its stance accordingly, and begin a new promotion strategy. If the answer is no, then at least one forumer's mind is set at ease knowing that Canonical remains true to its noble philosophy. But either way, an answer should be given.

[Jane Silber (silbs)]

Hi -

I have been asked to comment on this bug as I was involved in its creation and selection.

The image was commissioned by and created for Canonical. We encourage use of open source tools and open standards by all of our suppliers and contractors, but we do not insist on it. Philosophically we support and encourage and have a strong preference for open source software, but at the same time we are not "anti-propriety". We do make requirements of our suppliers in terms of the format in which materials are delivered to us (so that we in turn don't have to use proprietary software), but just as you should be allowed to choose the software you want to run, so should our suppliers and contractors (as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on our choices).

The image in question is an open format (jpg), and is used on a website which does not require viewers to run any proprietary software. In no way has the process of commissioning, creating or displaying the image infringed on the rights of the Ubuntu community to make their own choices regarding their use of free and open source software.

I hope this helps - let me know if further questions.

Cheers,
Jane

[Ebuntor (ebuntor)]

Thank you for explaining it so thoroughly. By "The image was commissioned by and created for Canonical." I assume you mean it was created by an artist who wasn't affiliated with Canonical since it wasn't created by them. Is that correct?

[Matthew East (mdke)]

Ebuntor - it's clear from what Jane said about "contractors and suppliers" that the artwork on the Ubuntu website is created by the external graphics design company used for this project.

William Vann - thanks for your bug report, I hope that Jane's response has clarified your question and I'll close the bug for now. Please feel free to report any other bugs that you find.