pyg

Woops, sorry, didn't want to be the guy who always raised the same issue :? I understand, but MIT license implies source code availability. So "Paint.NET is distributed under Paint.NET license, derived from MIT License", would be better than "Paint.NET is distributed under MIT License". Sorry, my english is quite bad. Shortly : MIT License implies source code distribution (author choose the manner/price). Paint.NET is not open source (Rick's confirmation above). So it would be a lot clearer to remove/rename link to MIT License, which is very confusing (and that's why you've got the question once per month).

The Paint.NET code is still licensed that way. It's just not available that way anymore. You're still allowed to do those things with Paint.NET, if you still have the source code. If not, that section of the license doesn't apply to you anyway. That's the point. OK : if I understand you well (sorry, my english is quite bad). - Paint.NET source code is licensed under MIT License - Paint.NET use some non Free Software licence ressources (GPC, Assets, and logo), wich is permitted by MIT licence - Source code of Paint.NET is not downloadable (which is not an obligation, that's true) That's it ? OK, my problem is that if there's no way to access the source code, you can't say it's open source. See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php And http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html I totally agree that "access to source code" doesn't mean "free access to source code". So Rick/Paint.NET team may sell access to the source code. But if the answer is "there's no way to access source code. And do not ask about it" (viewtopic.php?f=27&t=28275). You can't say that last versions of Paint.NET are MIT licensed (and if I understand your previous answer, you confirm that : 'if you do not have source code, the license doesn't apply to you anyway"). Once again, I totally agree that "Free Software" mean "gratis software". I just wanted to know if the MIT license link could be removed to avoid misunderstandings. Because, "no way to access source code" = "not compliant with open source license" Even MIT license, because it do not fullfil my "right to modify" : That's not a judgment upon Rick's choice to not make source code available (he's the author afterall), but I wanted to make sure about there is no way to access source code. If the answer is no, I just don't understand why not remove the link on download page, or tell on the license page "Version of Paint.NET before 3.20 (or so) where under MIT License and © Rick Brewster and Paint.NET team, versions since 3.21 are © Rick Brewster and Paint.NET team" ? That's just a sentence that would clarify the situation a lot, I think... BTW, thanks David for your quick answer

Hello world, I'm a great fan of Paint.net, and want to thanks aigain all it's major contributors I saw here : viewtopic.php?f=27&t=28245 That Paint.net "is not open source" And ( viewtopic.php?p=212737#p212737 ) And here ( viewtopic.php?f=27&t=28275 ), Rick says that the source code is not available (and ask us to not ask about it). OK. It's Rick's source code, so it beong to Rick to choose the license. I repect that a lot (even if, of course, I'm sad about it). The source code is no longer available on the source page. But on the download page, it's written (at bottom : http://www.getpaint.net/license.html ) I feel like a contradiction If source code is not available, it's not open source, right ? I konw that some part of PdN are under MIT License (wich is of course totally legal), but maybe it would be clearer to say "some part of paint.net are Open source (MIT License) but Paint.net is freeware". So maybe Rick (or website admin) may remove the licence link wich confuse a lot of users (especially foreign users like me) ? It would make it clear once for all. Thanks again for Paint.net

Thx for the hint But I'm also supposing than this is more a size issue than a extension issue. If I edit the file, it starts with : ÿØÿà JFIF H H ÿágÒExif II* " @ P Z b ( ð1 j 2 z i‡ ’ Ž ¤ ¤ ð¤ @@¤ – ¤ $ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ð ¤ ¥Ä | ž ÆD KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DYNAX 5D ºn è ºn è Paint.NET v3.31 2008:10:30 12:41:30 Or if I save a png file, it always starts with ‰PNG So, is there a limit to a .pdn image size or number of layers ? Thx again !

Hello world, I've a 6Mb .pdn file I've made yesterday. And today I can't open it :-( "Une erreur non spécifiée s'est produite à l'ouverture du fichier" ("an unspecified error happened while opening file") Link to the file http://dl.free.fr/rPYjxS9ZW Does anyone could help me, please ? Thx Paint.net in last version on XP SP2