- Inkscape Board of Directors

donation for inkscape hackfest
by Máirín Duffy 19 May '15

19 May '15

Hi folks, I hope this isn't too late - Red Hat put aside $500 for the Inkscape Hackfest. One of the stipulations of the funding is that I write an article interviewing one of the developers who went to talk about how the hackfest went / what was worked on. If this sounds like a good deal, can you let me know if it's still okay to use the donation link here (https://inkscape.org/en/support-us/hackfest/) post-hackfest and who would be a good person for me to interview? Thanks ~m

4 4

[REFERENDUM] SVG Working Group Meeting - Linkoping
by Bryce Harrington 19 May '15

19 May '15

Proposal: [ ] a. Approve funding Tav to attend the Linkoping SVG WG meeting as outlined below, for a total of up to $900. [ ] b. Do not approve funding Tav. Votes: Josh Andler Jon A. Cruz Bryce Harrington Ted Gould Tavmjong Bah (recused) Resolution: The board will subsidize travel for Tav to go to the Linkoping SVG WG meeting for a total of up to $900. Background: I (Tav) would like funding to attend the Linkoping SVG working group meeting, to be held June 9-12, 2015. The SVG working group is working through remaining issues in the SVG 2 specification. The specification is essentially feature complete. At this point incomplete features without a champion are being removed or moved into separate specifications (as happened with some new stroke and marker properties at the Sydney meeting). It would be good for me to be present in person to make sure that features important to Inkscape like mesh gradients, hatched fills, auto-flowed text are not dropped. Motions to drop features can arrive quickly and without warning as evidenced by the recent removal of SMIL animation from the SVG 2 specification. Attending in person can be very fruitful. At the Sydney meeting I was able to get text on a shape, auto-closing of paths, and smoothing in gradients into the SVG 2 specification. The major browser vendors are represented so it is a chance to lobby them to add these features quickly to the their browsers. Progress on SVG 2 can be followed at: https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/ My presentations at the last SVG working group meeting can be found at: http://tavmjong.free.fr/SVG/sydney_2015.html and a meeting report at: http://tavmjong.free.fr/blog/?p=1226 Approximate cost for Linkoping Transportation: Paris to Linkoping: $450 5 nights lodging/meals: $450 BTW, here is what Inkscape spent on my attending SVG WG meetings in 2015 and 2014 (additional funding to that for attending LGM and GSoC mentor's meeting): 2015: Sydney $2250 2014: Leipzig $900 (Just after LGM) London $757 (Transportation paid for by SVG Open) Santa Clara $616 (Just after GSoC mentor's meeting) Tavmjong Bah

5 8

Summary of expenses for Hackfest and LGM
by Tavmjong Bah 16 May '15

16 May '15

Hi, I am about to submit the reimbursement request for the Toronto Hackfest and LGM. We allocated the participants a total of $12000 for the combined event. I will be submitting a reimbursement request for $4910 which, with Jabiertxo's airfare which SFC has already paid for, brings the total participation support by Inkscape to $5780. The final number may change but it won't be by much. (This does not include the $400 allocated for the Inkscape dinner.) Krzysztof wins the prize for being the thriftiest, managing to find an airfare for Warsaw to Toronto of only $505! Tav

3 2

SVG Working Group Meeting - Linkoping
by Tavmjong Bah 15 May '15

15 May '15

Hi, There is a four day SVG Working Group meeting in Sweden next month. I would like to attend it if at all possible. This will be the last big face-to-face meeting of the group this year (there is a two day meeting planned in Sapporo, Japan in October as part of TPAC but that is a long way to go for such a short meeting). I wasn't planning on asking for funds to go to this meeting but since we didn't need to dip into our funds for the hackfest and LGM our budget seems to be in good shape. I would need a maximum of $900 to attend the meeting. We are slowly working our way through the remaining issues in the SVG 2 draft specification. Nothing significant will be added but things could be cut. I was able to defend a couple of things at the Sydney meeting and even get some new things in (text on a shape, auto-smoothing of gradient meshes, auto-path closing). I would like to be there again to defend anything that might come up. I talked to Bryce and Josh about this at the hackfest and they seemed positive. Ted and Jon, can you let me know what you think ASAP? Thanks, Tav BTW, here is what Inkscape spent on my attending SVG WG meetings in 2015 and 2014 (additional funding to that for attending LGM and GSoC mentor's meeting): 2015: Sydney $2250 2014: Leipzig $900 (Just after LGM) London $757 (Transportation paid for by SVG Open) Santa Clara $616 (Just after GSoC mentor's meeting)

2 2

Re: [Inkscape-board] URGENT: issues re: Jabier's travel to LGM 2015
by Bryce Harrington 24 Apr '15

24 Apr '15

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 04:16:28PM -0400, Tony Sebro wrote: > Hi, all. > > As you know, the Inkscape Committee approved and Conservancy booked a > flight for Jabier from Madrid to attend LGM 2015. His flight is > scheduled to depart tomorrow. We're now facing an issue where an > inconsistency between his name on the ticket and his name on his > passport may prevent him from traveling. There's a possibility that we > will need to pay a ticket re-issuing fee or buy another ticket in order > for him to travel; to do so, we would need the Inkscape Committee's > approval. See below for details. > > *** > > Jabier's full name (as he provided to us, and as printed on his > passport) is "Francisco Javier Arraiza Cenoz". I booked the ticket via > Orbitz back in March; the Orbitz reservation displays Jabier's full name > as "FRANCISCO JAVIERARRAIZA CENOZ" (they ignored the space between the > middle two names). Jabier expressed concern about the discrepancy, so > Karen spent a few hours in March on the phone with Orbitz and the two > airlines on the itinerary (Delta and KLM). She finally received > confirmation from an Orbitz sales rep that Jabier should be able to > travel on the ticket as-is[1]. > > Today, Jabier printed out his boarding pass; the name on the boarding > pass is "FRANCISCO CENOZ". He called KLM (airline operator of the first > leg of the itinerary) to confirm that he'd be able to travel under that > name; the KLM agent told him no. I spent a few hours on the phone with > Orbitz trying to work out a solution. According to Orbitz, it's up to > the Delta ticketing agent at the airport to make a "judgment call" as to > whether to let Jabier on the plane or not. > > I spent another hour fighting with Delta about it; Delta claims that > Orbitz didn't pass along the right information and didn't properly > populate the secure flight passenger information. So, I'm about to call > Orbitz again. $%^&# airlines. > *Either way:* barring any new information from Delta, KLM, or Orbitz, > we advise Jabier to get to the airport early tomorrow to ask the Delta > ticketing agent at the airport to a) honor the ticket under the printed > name, and b) instruct KLM to do the same. If they refuse, we'd have to > consider the option of buying a new ticket in order for Jabier to travel. > > As of right now, there is another, similar itinerary available for > $720.70 that would get Jabier into Toronto at the same time of his > original itinerary, and would have him return to Madrid two hours later > on May 3rd. That price may change by tomorrow. Is the Inkscape > Committee willing to approve this additional expense (+/- $100 or so), > should it be necessary? Please advise. If you approve the additional > expense, then we'd instruct Jabier to contact us in the event that he's > unable to travel on the original ticket, and we'd book a new itinerary > on the spot. +1 vote from me. > Thanks. -Tony > > [1] I brought this earlier conversation up with Orbitz today; they're > going to conduct an investigation. But, the investigation will not be > resolved in time to affect Jabier's travel. > > -- > Tony Sebro, General Counsel, Software Freedom Conservancy > +1-212-461-3245 x11 > tony@...41... > www.sfconservancy.org > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVOqScAAoJELVK3KckMFSETwQH/RC+yfmHdRnfMTnv+kixzdu/ > 67rLE2O7J0Q+v4Lpay/iWlgTuvxAhFWV70BeauC0VrofzmZgPP3yFF6gdx2EQUUc > CgKqu6hhxpNm+MH4DGsB2oxZnNO7Xf+IALDMm/PEI6eu7JInNUzKoTFfUdI8pF0b > EMvkayA/UHPgPO3lWhIiUVGByj9YU38tc5qcQ3PNa9jmmi/ae0tAuN8EYU6CM1r/ > +5OMugf5t3Iee8qq2pzd0ZXP5FdYf8hs/k0bmlaB/YFoPlINY2h+GU/A3Dh784q+ > xUfLZEefdKbv2sYo3TDvJ1lgCmVz2keKIZ6U5+UA8RY4LZABDuk4fb2jrrheBcw= > =rDeE > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[REFERENDUM] Inkscape Hackfest Dinner
by Bryce Harrington 23 Apr '15

23 Apr '15

A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following matter. Proposal: Should the Inkscape Board send the Inkscape hackfest team out for dinner at a nice restaraunt while in Toronto? [ ] a. Yea, for the estimated cost of up to $400 [ ] b. Nay On approval, we'll find a good restaraunt (perhaps suggested by our local contacts), make a reservation, and arrange cab transportation as needed. Attendance is estimated at 8-10 people, and dinner as costing around $30-35 per person. Bryce

5 7

[REFERENDUM] GPL violation of inkscape
by Bryce Harrington 22 Apr '15

22 Apr '15

A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following Inkscape GPL violation matter. Proposal: [ ] a. Approve purchase of Digital Fashion Pro by the Conservancy lawyers, up to $250. [ ] b. Approve purchase of Digital Fashion Pro by the Conservancy lawyers, at any price. [ ] c. Do not approve purchase Background: Hi guys, It's been brought to our attention that there is a company selling software called Digital Fashion Pro, which in actuality is just Inkscape with some templates thrown in, and a price tag in the hundreds or thousands of dollars. It appears they neither mention that the software is open source under the GPL, nor make offers of source code for download, which is a GPL violation. In order to establish legal proof of the violation, Conservancy needs to verify the lack of source offer, and to do that they need to examine a purchased copy of the software. Their policy is to ask the infringed project (i.e. us) to foot the bill for that copy. If it is found that the company is in fact in violation, they will be asked (or legally required) to repay this amount. They may also be required to pay legal fees, and to come into compliance with the GPL. The price of the software has varied during the time of observation. Currently it is "on sale" for $200, but I've seen it offered at $500 and even $1500. Please see below for the Conservancy's estimation of the likely best/typical/worst case resolution of this. Bryce ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 04/08/2015 04:33 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote: > Before we get too far into this, can I ask a basic question? > What is the best/likely/worst outcomes we should expect from engaging > with them on this? Probably the best outcome would be for us to find that they already include a fully-compliant source release of Digital Fashion Pro along with the product itself, and that they are willing to update their advertising to make it clear that Digital Fashion Pro is a modified version of Inkscape (assuming that lack of clarity is one of the current issues). Even better would be for them to release Digital Fashion Pro and its source code at no charge, but I don't think this is likely given that it seems to be a main revenue stream so I wouldn't consider it a possible outcome really. Another good outcome would be that, though they didn't ship source initially, they give us a source candidate when we first contact them and it happens to be compliant, so we charge them for our time and they pay us. They might even agree to allow us to write a Conservancy blog post praising them for coming into compliance, though usually companies don't since they don't like people knowing that they weren't in compliance to begin with. But if we did get that, perhaps by giving them a discount on what we charge them for our time checking their source, it would be very helpful in deterring future violators and encouraging compliance generally, as people would see Conservancy is reasonable and willing to work with violators to amicably resolve issues without public shaming. The worst outcome would be that we spend a lot of resources on this issue and it drags on for a year or more and they're unwilling to budge so we have to file a lawsuit and we eventually have to agree to a settlement that offers only the minimum compliance required by the GPL. That minimum compliance might not resolve the trademark issues, which we could try to resolve some other way (through a separate action, possibly also including a lawsuit). "Minimum compliance" would in practice likely involve them providing source only to people who have purchased Digital Fashion Pro and who have asked for source. Also, we may have to keep chasing them as they may then release new versions that are not compliant. Note that we very rarely file lawsuits to achieve compliance - this is a worst-case scenario. A likely outcome is that we buy Digital Fashion Pro, find that it doesn't include source code or an offer for source code, and then when we ask for source, they initially claim they don't need to send us any, but eventually they capitulate and send us some source code they think corresponds to the Digital Fashion Pro binaries they ship. We will probably need to go back and forth with them a few times when it doesn't build correctly, but we will likely reach a point where they have provided all the source to us. We'll ask them to include an offer for source with their product, which they'll do, and provide source on a CD or similar to anyone who's bought the product and asks for source. This who process would probably take 6 months to a year. I hesitate somewhat to say this is a "likely outcome", but given the information I have so far (see below), it's difficult to provide a more accurate assessment. Another possible outcome is that they agree to stop distributing Digital Fashion Pro and any other software that includes or is based on Inkscape. This would be compliant, but is also an unlikely outcome since Inkscape-derived copies of software seem to be one of their main revenue streams. > I ask because I know it'll be a hassle to pursue this, and want to make > sure the benefits are going worth the effort. I'll need to get > Inkscape's board to agree to pay for the validation copy of the > software, so I'd like to communicate to them what outcome we're aiming > to see. Hopefully the above will help with that, though I would emphasize that it's very difficult to tell where any violation matter might go, especially in a situation like this where it is extremely unclear how close to compliance they might be (without buying the software). One option for getting a better idea without buying Digital Fashion Pro would be to contact a person who has received Digital Fashion Pro and ask them whether the distribution they received was compliant - we could contact such a person for you if you know of one. In any case, we will probably have a much better idea of the willingness of Digital Fashion Pro's distributors to work with us after we have downloaded Digital Fashion Pro and made initial contact with them (assuming it is violating, which seems likely). We could most likely make this initial contact within a month or two of us buying Digital Fashion Pro. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Thanks! Denver ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Forwarded message from Denver Gingerich <compliance@...41...> ----- Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:15:31 -0400 From: Denver Gingerich <compliance@...41...> To: Bryce Harrington <bryce@...107...> Cc: Karen Sandler <karen@...41...>, Tony Sebro <tony@...41...> Subject: Re: GPL violation on Inkscape On 03/31/2015 02:16 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote: > Hi Karen, > > Guessing this got lost amongst all the GPL violation mail... I know > you're really busy. Real quick though, is this something SFC might be > able to help us with, or should we pursue it ourselves? Yes, Conservancy can help with this, though we will likely need more facts in order to take action. I've described what we need below. Apologies for the delay in responding; compliance matters like this are generally handled by me, but I only work at Conservancy one day a week. > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:20:09PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote: >> Hi Karen, >> >> See email from Maren below. This company is selling a product called >> Digital Fashion Pro for $1446 (academic price $499), which consists of >> Inkscape bundled with some training materials and templates. You can >> see the software is just rebranded Inkscape via their main video: >> >> http://startingaclothingline.com/html/pu-demo.html There are likely both copyright and trademark issues here. I mainly work with the copyright issues myself; I've CCed Tony, Conservancy's general counsel, who has more knowledge of trademark issues. To continue with investigating the possible copyright infringement case (that is, the potential GPL violation), we normally prefer to have some "hard evidence". To obtain this evidence, we'd like to purchase Digital Fashion Pro to confirm that it does indeed violate the GPL (likely by failing to provide source code or an offer for source). I see at http://shop.startingaclothingline.com/ that "1b- Digital Fashion Pro V8 Basic" is currently available for $199. That seems to be the least expensive version that's likely to include Inkscape. With enforcement work like this, we typically ask the member project to pay any direct costs, such as the $199 cost of buying Digital Fashion Pro in this case, but we do not charge the member project for any Conservancy staff time. Of course, we will ask the violator to pay our costs, including the cost of buying the product (ie. Digital Fashion Pro), which would then revert to the member project. However, be aware that we often aren't able to collect from violators, for a variety of reasons. For more details about Conservancy's usual procedures for enforcing the GPL, feel free to read https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2012/feb/01/gpl-enforcement/ . >> Also, on their troubleshooting page it explicitly references "Free IS.48 >> Vector Application", which they copy protect with a serial number to >> unlock it during install. >> >> http://startingaclothingline.com/html/troubleshooting.html It's hard to say from that page exactly how the serial number is being used and whether their method would violate the GPL. Since we should obtain the software anyway in order to check more general compliance, we can assess the serial number issue once we receive the software. >> ----- Forwarded message from maren@...92... ----- >> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:56:58 +0100 >> From: maren@...92... >> To: Bryce Harrington <bryce@...2...> >> Subject: Strange Inkscape redistribution - could this be a GPL violation? [...] >> You can follow up on this here: >> https://answers.launchpad.net/inkscape/+question/263166 >> >> Also, it is not clear if they offer a modified version or the original >> software. At least they seem to call it differently. This is another fact pattern that we'd like to confirm, which again would be most easily done after we receive the software. Please let me know if you have any questions at all about any of this. Thanks! Denver Gingerich FLOSS License Compliance Engineer Software Freedom Conservancy ----- End forwarded message -----

6 7

Budget page
by Bryce Harrington 18 Apr '15

18 Apr '15

Hi All, The Inkscape Budget for 2015 is now posted on our website: https://inkscape.org/en/about/governance/budget/ As mentioned on the page, the purpose of this budget is to help the board in deciding expenditures for the year, and we'll be periodically updating it as further expenses get decided. Bryce

2 1

Hackfest Funding
by Josh Andler 15 Apr '15

15 Apr '15

Hi Bryce and all, As I brought up in IRC, I'd like to see Jabiertxof bumped up to the $1500 sponsorship mark for the hackfest. He has been working on Inkscape since at least October of '12 (he asked for testing of a branch at that point on the devel list), even though he wasn't a committer at that time... anyway, I definitely think it counts as being a contributor back then (plus he is also over 100 commits). Given the pretty good success of the fundraising for the hackfest, I don't think this will ding our coffers (since I don't think we're going to have to use much of what we already allocated). This is just more of a formality so the board is aware of him meeting the requirements for the next level of funding. Cheers, Josh

3 2

Board Elections
by Tavmjong Bah 21 Mar '15

21 Mar '15

Hi, And then there were five... I think we should have board elections ASAP. I believe that we have approved the voting method. Is there anything stopping us from starting the election process? Tav

3 8